Комментарий к Шмот 12:56

ויאמר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן AND THE LORD SPAKE UNTO MOSES AND AARON — Because Aaron had worked and toiled in performing the wonders just the same as Moses He paid him this honour at the first command by including him with Moses in the communication (Tanchuma Yahshan 2:3:8).

בארץ מצרים לאמר, seeing that this is a paragraph containing a great deal of legislation, it was important to state that this legislation was legislated when the Israelites were still in Egypt. The other commandments of the Torah were communicated to Moses/people either at Mount Sinai, the Tabernacle, or in the wilderness of Moav, shortly before Moses’ death. [there were also some at Marah, on the way to Mount Sinai. Ed.]

וידבר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן בארץ מצרים, “Hashem spoke to Moses and to Aaron in the land of Egypt, etc.” The emphasis here is on the word ארץ, in open country, outside the city limits, as our sages have explained. We must distinguish between such utterances of G’d to Moses as the instruction to warn Pharaoh of the plague of the dying of the firstborn, a communication Moses received while in Pharaoh’s palace, not outside the city limits. Prayers, commandments, etc., G’d had not revealed within the urban area to Moses, nor did Moses offer his prayers, there, as the urban centers were the centers which abounded with idolatrous symbols, symbols which were despicable in the eyes of G’d. In fact, Moses had already been informed about the plague but it had not been a commandment in the sense that he had to deliver the warning at a certain time. This occurred only now, and seeing that there was nothing new in it this warning this could be delivered within the urban area. The legislation about a new calendar and the Passover had to be revealed outside the urban areas of Egypt

ויאמר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן. “G’d spoke to Moses and Aaron.” Even though it appears from the wording of the verse that G’d’s words were addressed to both Moses and Aaron, Moses was the principal recipient of G’d’s words. When the Torah writes in Exodus 20,12: “honor your father and your mother,” the father is the principal subject in that commandment. Seeing that Aaron was involved in performing the miracles the Torah included his name amongst those addressed.

Kap. 12. V. 1 u. 2. also noch im Lande Mizrajim, gab Gott dem Mosche und Aaron eine neue Sendung in dem Kreise des eigenen Volkes, deren Erfolg gesicherter sein soll. Bis dahin waren Mosche und Aaron die Gottesgesandten für Israel an Pharao; sie werden fortan die Boten Gottes an Israel, und diese ihre Sendung schließt sich eng ihrer Sendung an Pharao an. אותות ומופתים im Lande Mizrajim zu üben, war bis jetzt ihr Beruf, um durch Hinweisung auf Gott offenbarende, das Menschengemüt ergreifende Naturereignisse die ägyptischen Menschen zum verlorenen Gott- und Menschenpflichtbewusstsein zurückzuführen und durch sie eine Umwandlung, eine Erneuung und Wiedergeburt des Pharao zu versuchen. Der Wahn und die Verderbnis hatten jedoch dies Herz zu stark und zu lange bereits gefangen gehalten. Nur unter dem Eindruck des Schreckens und der Angst war ihm ein Unterwerfen unter Gottes Willen abzuringen. Sich selbst wiedergegeben, blieb das Herz starr, unbeweglich das alte. An diese Erfahrung knüpfte Gott an, und — damit in seinem nun werdenden Volke der Wahn und die Verderbnis nie einniste, die dann selbst Schreckenszeichen und Strafwundern nicht weichen möchten — begann Er die innere Schöpfung seines Volkes mit Einsetzung eines אות, eines regelmäßig periodisch wiederkehrenden Wahrzeichens, das immer aufs neue den Blick des Volkes auf sich ziehe, zur immer neuen Wiedergeburt aus der Nacht des Wahns und der Verderbnis lade und die ewige Verjüngung zur Wahrheit und Reinheit also sichere, dass es Israel für immer vor ägyptischer geistiger und sittlicher Erstarrung bewahre.

בארץ מצרים, “in the land of Egypt.” Outside of the capital. If a conversation with G–d concerning a minor matter required Moses to leave the capital, as we know from Exodus 9,29, when something of major importance was to be discussed this required him to leave the capital of Egypt even more so.[This is all based on the extraneous words “in the land,” in our verse. It would have otherwise sufficed to simply write: “in Egypt.” Ed.] The reason why outside the capital of Egypt G–d would address Moses was that the land of Israel had not yet been chosen as the only area from which prophecy would be received. [When the first Temple was destroyed the prophet Ezekiel did receive prophetic visions as we know from Ezekiel 3,22. So did the prophet Jonah (Jonah 1,3) who had fled from the Holy Land. At any rate, as long as Jerusalem had not become the capital of Israel, G–d sometimes addressed prophets outside its boundaries. During those years sacrificial offerings were also acceptable outside Jerusalem. Moses’ warning in Deuteronomy 12,13, not to offer such offerings any place the owner of the animal chose to do so, was also not effective before the Temple stood in Jerusalem. The town itself was potentially on a spiritual level where prophetic visions could be received. As long as Aaron had not been appointed as High Priest, any area was potentially fit to serve as sovereign soil for the Jewish people under a king. These rules are derived from verses in Kings I 8,16, as well as from Chronicles II 13,5.

ויאמר ה' אל משה ואהרו, this paragraph had been revealed to Moses prior to the instructions about the plague of the killing of the firstborn, as it must have been revealed before the tenth of the month, seeing that it contains instructions applicable from the 10th of the month onwards. The killing of the firstborn occurred during the night from the fourteenth to the fifteenth of that month. Seeing that we have a principle that the Torah is not bound to be written in chronological order of events described, this does not present a problem. Whenever the author of the Torah did not want to interrupt a certain subject under discussion, one way of achieving this was to ignore chronology. Another reason for this here is that the laws applicable to the month of Nissan should appear consecutively without interruption or digression.

בארץ מצרים IN THE LAND OF EGYPT — This must have been outside the city! Or perhaps this is not so, but it was inside the city? Scripture however states, (Exodus 9:29) “When I leave the city [I will spread my hands (pray) unto the Lord]”. Now how was it in regard to prayer which is of light importance in comparison with a communication from God? He did not recite the prayer inside the city! Then, in the case of a divine communication which is of so weighty importance does it not follow all the more that this was also so! — And why, indeed, did He not converse with him inside the city? Because it was full of idols (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:1:4).

בארץ מצרים, “in the land of Egypt.” Seeing that this chapter contains a number of commandments, it was necessary to write where these commandments were issued. Whenever no mention is made of where a commandment was issued, we can assume that it was first issued at Mount Sinai. [Though not necessarily communicated to the people at the time it was issued. Ed.]

לאמר, “go and tell them immediately.”

החדש הזה — He showed him the moon in the first stage of its renewal, and He said to him, “The time when the moon renews itself thus, shall be unto you the beginning of the month”. (The translation therefore is: “This stage of renewal (חדש) shall be the moment of beginning the months”; cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:2:2). But no Scriptural verse can lose its literal meaning, and He really spoke this in reference to the month Nisan: this month shall be the beginning in the order of counting the months, so that Iyar shall be called the second, Sivan the third.

THIS MONTH SHALL BE UNTO YOU THE BEGINNING OF MONTHS. This is the first commandment which the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Israel through Moses. Therefore it says here [that the Eternal spoke unto Moses and Aaron] in the land of Egypt,⁹⁷Verse 1. for the rest of the commandments of the Torah were given to him on Mount Sinai. It may be that the intent of the expression, in the land of Egypt, is to exclude the city of Egypt, just as our Rabbis have said:⁹⁸Mechilta, Introduction. “In the land of Egypt. This means outside the city.”
Now Scripture should have first said, Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying:⁹⁹Verse 3. This month shall be unto you the beginning of months, and so on to the end of the chapter. [Why then is the verse, Speak ye, etc., mentioned after the verse, This month, etc.?] It is because Moses and Aaron — [as mentioned in Verse 1: And the Eternal spoke unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying: This month, etc.] — are in the place of Israel. Saying it to them is equivalent to saying it to Israel in all their generations. In the following verse, however, He repeats by saying, Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, in order to command them something which is not binding for all time, namely, the buying of the paschal offering in Egypt on the tenth day of Nisan.¹⁰⁰In subsequent generations, the paschal offering may be purchased at any time (Pesachim 96a). Ramban’s thought is thus clear. With the commandment, This month shall be unto you, etc., applying as it does for all time, it is sufficient for Scripture to mention only Moses and Aaron in connection with it, since they are in place of Israel for all times. But since the command mentioned in Verse 3, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, applied only to the paschal offering in Egypt, He therefore preceded it again by saying, Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, the Israel of that time.
According to the Midrashic interpretation,¹⁰¹Rosh Hashanah 25b. The process involved witnesses who saw the appearance of the new moon. After their testimony was heard and examined, the chief of the Court then said, “It is hallowed!” and all the people answered him, “It is hallowed! It is hallowed!” This established that day as being the first of the month, and the occurrence of all festivals of that month were accordingly determined. With the Great Court or Sanhedrin no longer functioning in the Land of Israel, the first of the month is established only by calculating when the new moon appears. For a more detailed discussion of this important topic, see my translation of “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 159-163. lachem (unto you) [in the verse, This month shall be unto you], means that “the Sanctification of the New Moon”¹⁰¹Rosh Hashanah 25b. The process involved witnesses who saw the appearance of the new moon. After their testimony was heard and examined, the chief of the Court then said, “It is hallowed!” and all the people answered him, “It is hallowed! It is hallowed!” This established that day as being the first of the month, and the occurrence of all festivals of that month were accordingly determined. With the Great Court or Sanhedrin no longer functioning in the Land of Israel, the first of the month is established only by calculating when the new moon appears. For a more detailed discussion of this important topic, see my translation of “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 159-163. is to be performed only by a Court of experts [as Moses and Aaron were]. And this is the reason it does not say at the beginning [of Verse 2], Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, since “the Sanctification of the New Moon” can be performed only by Moses and Aaron and their like.
Now the purport of the expression, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months, is that Israel is to count this as the first of the months, and from it they are to count all months — second, third, etc., until a year of twelve months is completed — in order that there be through this enumeration a remembrance of the great miracle, [i.e., the exodus from Egypt, which occurred in the first month]. Whenever we will mention the months, the miracle will be remembered.¹⁰²Thus everytime a person says, for example, “the third month,” he implies that it is the third in the order of the months which begins with Nisan, when the exodus occurred. It is for this reason that the months have no individual names in the Torah. Instead, Scripture says: In the third month;¹⁰³Further, 19:1. And it came to pass in the second year, in the second month … that the cloud was taken up from over the Tabernacle of the Testimony;¹⁰⁴Numbers 10:11. And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, etc.,¹⁰⁵Ibid., 29:1. and so in all cases. Just as in counting the weekdays we always remember the Sabbath-day since the weekdays have no specific name of their own, but instead are called “one day in the Sabbath,” “the second day in the Sabbath,” as I will explain,¹⁰⁶Further, 20:8. so we remember the exodus from Egypt in our counting “the first month,” “the second month,” “the third month,” etc., to our redemption.
This order of the counting of the months is not in regard to the years, for the beginning of our years is from Tishri, [the seventh month], as it is written, And the feast of ingathering at the turn of the year,¹⁰⁷Ibid., 34:22. Now the feast of ingathering is in the seventh month (Leviticus 23:39) and yet Scripture calls it here at the turn of the year, which means the beginning of the new year. Thus we learn that Tishri is the beginning of the year, although in the order of the counting of the months it is the seventh month. and it is further written, And the feast of ingathering, at the end of the year.¹⁰⁸Ibid., 23:16. If so, when we call the month of Nisan the first of the months and Tishri the seventh, the meaning thereof is “the first [month] to the redemption” and “the seventh month” thereto. This then is the intent of the expression, it shall be the first month to you, meaning that it is not the first in regard to the year but it is the first “to you,” i.e., that it be called “the first” for the purpose of remembering our redemption.
Our Rabbis have already mentioned this matter when saying,¹⁰⁹Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah I, 2. “The names of the months came up with us from Babylon,” since at first we had no names for the months. The reason for this [adoption of the names of the months when our ancestors returned from Babylon to build the Second Temple], was that at first their reckoning was a memorial to the exodus from Egypt, but when we came up from Babylon, and the words of Scripture were fulfilled — And it shall no more be said: As the Eternal liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, but: As the Eternal liveth that brought up and that led the children of Israel from the land of the north¹¹⁰Jeremiah 16:14-15. The expression and that led is found ibid., 23:8. — from then on we began to call the months by the names they were called in the land of Babylon. We are thus reminded that there we stayed [during our exile] and from there, blessed G-d brought us up [to our Land].¹¹¹From Ramban’s “Sermon on Rosh Hashanah,” where he discussed the same topic (Kithvei Haramban, Vol. I, p. 215), it is crystal clear that the author’s intent here was not that the memorial of the redemption from Babylon will thrust aside the memorial of the redemption from Egypt. Rather, the one of Babylon will be added to that of Egypt, so that the names of the months will be reminiscent of the two redemptions together. See Note 114 further, for example. Joseph Albo’s position in his book Ikkarim (Roots), III, 16, that Ramban’s intent here was that after the return from the Babylonian exile, the first memorial was to give way altogether to the second, is thus not correct. For further discussion of this problem see the note in my Hebrew commentary Vol. II, p. 520. These names — Nisan, Iyar, and the others — are Persian names and are to be found only in the books of the prophets of the Babylonian era¹¹²See Zechariah 1:7, etc.; Ezra 6:15; Nehemiah 1:1. and in the Scroll of Esther.¹¹³Esther 3:7, etc. It is for this reason that Scripture says, In the first month, which is the month of Nisan,¹¹⁴Ibid. Thus both memorials are mentioned simultaneously: the first month to our redemption from Egypt, which is the month of Nisan, a name which is reminiscent of our Babylonian exile from which we have also been redeemed. just as it says, they cast ‘pur,’ that is, the lot.¹¹⁵Ibid. In this case too Scripture explains the Persian word pur as meaning lot, just as it explained the name Nisan as being “the first month.” To this day, people of Persia and Media use these names of the months — Nisan, Tishri, and the others — as we do. Thus through the names of the months we remember our second redemption even as we had done until then with regard to the first one.

החודש הזה לכם ראש חדשים, from now on these months will be yours, to do with as you like. [you have My authority to organise your own calendar. Ed.] This is by way of contrast to the years when you were enslaved when you had no control over your time or timetable at all. [Freedom, i.e. retirement from the “rat race,” means being able to formulate one’s own timetable. Ed.] While you were enslaved, your days, hours, minutes even, were always at the beck and call of your taskmasters.

This month shall mark for you the beginning of the months; it shall be the first month of the year for you: Since The Holy One, Blessed be God, showed Moses with His finger the moon in its newness saying "like this you see and shall bless" thus He said this is the beginning of the month. That is to say this newness (of the moon) will be for you the beginning of the months, that every time that you see the newness of the moon in this picture you will have a new month for every month of the year. And after God gave this sign - it was known about all the days of every month of the year to make them new for every month of the year

החודש הזה לכם ראש חדשים, "This month shall be for you the beginning of the months." Why did the Torah repeat ראש חדשים and ראשון הוא? I believe the meaning of ראש is that the month of Nissan will be particularly important, the choicest of the months. We find the word ראש used in this sense in Exodus 30,23 when the most important of the spices in the making of oil for anointing is discussed.

'בארץ מצרים לאמר החדש הזה וגו, according to the view of Rabbi Yehoshua in Rosh Hashanah 11 who holds that the earth was created in the month of Nissan,

החודש הזה לכם, “this month shall be for you.” Seeing that this was the first commandment relayed to the Jewish people, the Torah mentions that it was revealed to him in the land of Egypt, seeing that all (most) other laws were given to him at Mount Sinai. Alternatively, the words בארץ מצרים mean that the law was given in the rural area of Egypt not while Moses was in the urban areas. It would have been appropriate for the Torah to continue immediately with: “speak to the community of Israel that this month will be the first, etc.” However, Moses and Aaron are here considered as representing the entire people, and G’d first wanted to legislate matters that would remain valid throughout the generations before dealing with how the Passover by the present generation of Israelites who stood poised for the Exodus was to be observed. Once the Torah reports Moses and Aaron being told דברו אל כל עדת ישראל (verse 3), this is the commandment to tell the people now how to observe their Passover. Verse 14 commences with details about the observance of the day of the Exodus to be observed in subsequent years and by subsequent generations. According to the Midrash the wording of the Torah gives only the Jewish Supreme Court the latitude to proclaim the new moon so that the Torah could not first address the entire people. The meaning of the words: “this month shall be for you the first of the months,” is first and foremost that from now on this is the first month in the year for you, and all subsequent months are going to be named in relation to this month, i.e. “the second month”, “the third month”, etc. This will serve to keep the month of the redemption and the miracles associated with it alive in our daily lives throughout the year. We follow the same pattern as we follow with the days of the week, (in our daily psalms) by making the Sabbath the focal point of the week and the days following it all being related to it by being called “second day,” “third day,” etc. We remind ourselves of the day of our rest on every single day of the week by means of this stratagem Similarly, we remind ourselves of the miracle of the redemption by the Torah mentioning months only in that fashion. [after the Babylonian exile, the Jewish people adopted proper names for the months, even reflected in the manner we announce the new moon on the Sabbath preceding it. This was not the Torah’s intention, obviously, and this writer wonders if the sages who permitted use of the secular names of the months wanted to remind us that the redemption from the Babylonian exile did not completely eliminate the traces of exile for a variety of reasons which are not my task to elaborate on here. Ed.] These names of the months current in Persia did find their way into the Bible in the writings of Ezra, Daniel, and the story of Esther, as well as in the prophecies of Chagai and Zecharyah. These prophecies were all revealed while the prophets and the people were already in exile. The Jews who returned to the land of Israel after the Babylonian exile, may have intended to remind themselves of their being redeemed from that exile in a manner parallel to the Jews who were redeemed from Pharaoh’s exile.

Moshe had difficulty regarding the renewal of the moon, how much of it must be visible so that it be fit to be consecrated. Re”m cited and compared many sources but they are not connected. . . However, it seems clear to me that exceptional wisdom is needed in this matter. It says in Maseches Rosh Hashanah 20b: “Said R. Zeira said R. Nachman, ‘The new moon is invisible for twenty-four hours. For us [in Bavel], it is six from the old moon and eighteen from the new. For them [in Eretz Yisroel] it is six from the new and eighteen from the old.’” And this is the point over which Moshe had difficulty: is it six hours from the new, or is it eighteen from the new? (Nachalas Yaakov)

החודש הזה לכם ראש חדשים, the determination of the calendar, i.e. months of the year, is made only on the basis of astronomical calculations and is not based on visual observation. The proof that this is so is the fact that during the forty years the Israelites were wandering in the desert the heavenly cloud which enclosed them by day, shielding them from heat and from the eyes of curious outsiders, as well as the pillar of fire by night, made visual observation an impossibility. This is the meaning of the verse in Nechemyah 9,19 ואתה ברחמיך הרבים לא עזבתם במדבר את עמוד הענן לא סר מעליהם ביומם להנחותם בהדרך ואת העמוד האש בלילה להאיר להם ואת הדרך אשר ילכו בה. “You, in Your abundant compassion, did not abandon them in the wilderness. The pillar of cloud did not depart from them to lead them the way by day, nor the pillar of fire by night to give them light in the way they were to go.” How then were they possibly able to determine the times of the new moon and all the important elements of the calendar depending on this by visual observation? There is no question that the central commandment meant by our verse is to calculate the times of the new moon by astronomical means.

החודש הזה, “this month. [Seeing that the word “month” is an abstract term that cannot be described as visible, ”the meaning of G–d’s words are; “when you observe the position of the moon in which you see it at this time, this is when the lunar cycle enters a new phase, i.e. when the month in the Jewish calendar begins.” This event is to be sanctified by you on each occasion. The members of the Jewish High Court will have to officially proclaim this event. The word לכם, ”for you,” is G–d’s authority to appoint the High Court as competent to declare when the moon has renewed itself. If the members of the High Court deem it in the national interest, they have the authority to postpone the new moon for an extra day. [They do not have the authority to advance it for a day. Ed.] When Rosh Hashanbah approaches, G–d informs the angels that He will sit in judgment of mankind, and He gave them a preview similar to what He did with Avraham when He was about to destroy Sodom and its satellites. According to Rabbi Aushiyah, after He had told the angels that He was afraid He would have to destroy mankind, it happened once that when the day came and He had not sat in judgment, the angels approached G–d asking Him if He did not say to them: “Tomorrow I’ll sit in judgment over all of mankind and the judgment will result in our allowing mankind to disintegrate”? G–d replied: “My children have forced Me to delay this for a day when I authorised them to decide on making adjustments to the calendar.” [The editor of my edition of this edition of the Daat Z’keynim, points to a similar, but not identical statement in Sh’mot Rabbah 15,2, the prediction of mankind being destroyed being missing. Ed.] [If I understand the point of the Midrash correctly, if G–d had sat in judgment on the day on which Rosh Hashanah should have been according to His calendar, on that day the balance of good and evil on earth would have resulted in mankind having forfeited the right to exist. Due to the Rabbis having decided to observe Rosh Hashanah one day later, the pendulum by then will have swung to a positive balance allowing G–d a chance to continue to give mankind another chance. Ed.] Being aware of this, Moses said in Deuteronomy 4,7:כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלוקים קרובים אליו כה' אלוקינו בכל קראנו אליו, “for what great nation is there that has G–d so close to them, as the Lord our G–d whenever we call upon Him?" The word קראנו in that verse is to be understood as if it had been spelled קריאתנו, “our calling,” i.e. proclaiming the times of the new moon, or an additional calendar month making leap years.” According to our sages in the Talmud, tractate Menachot folio 29, this subject was one of three that Moses had had difficulty in comprehending without Divine assistance. [He had to be shown what the moon looked like at time of its monthly renewal. Ed.] Our author does not follow this, saying that anyone of us can see that at the end of the month it almost disappears completely, and at the beginning of the month it reappears gaining is visibility until full moon. Moses’ difficulty was that on the last day of the month the moon is just as invisible as on the first day of the month. How are we then to know if today is the last day of last month or the first day of the month just commencing? The answer is that the difference is that when approaching the end of the month, the hollow area of the semicircle points in the opposite direction from what it does at the beginning of the month. The hollow area faces west when the moon is in its second half, while it faces east when in its first half. Another way of determining this is that near the end of its monthly orbit it is visible in the south-eastern corner of the sky, whereas at the beginning of its monthly orbit it faces south-west.

החדש, “the month;” every first day of the month is referred to as חדש in the Torah (Bible?) whereas the entire month is called ירח, “moon.” The reason that the first day of the month is called חדש, “new,” is because it represents the renewal of the moon’s orbit.

הזה THIS [STAGE OF RENEWAL] — Moses was in perplexity regarding the Molad of (the exact moment when begins) the new moon — how much of it must be visible before it is proper to consecrate it as new moon: He therefore pointed it out to him in the sky with the finger and said to him, “Behold it like this, and consecrate it” (i. e., when you see the moon in a stage of renewal similar to this which you now behold you may proclaim that a new month has begun). But how could He point it out to him, for did He not conserve with him only by day, as it is said, (Exodus 6:28) “And it came to pass on the day when the Lord spake [unto Moses]”; (Leviticus 7:38) “On the day when he commanded”; (Numbers 15:23) “From the day that the Lord commanded and henceforward”? But the explanation is: This chapter was spoken to him close to sunset and He pointed it out to him at nightfall (more lit., near darkness) (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:2:1).

לחדשי השנה, “whenever I will say to you that some festival is to occur in the ‘eight’s or ninth month,’ the number refers to Nissan being the ‘first’ month relative to this.” According to Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the earth was created in Tishrey, we would have to understand the plain meaning of the text as follows:

The Torah stressed the word לכם, for you, to tell us that this month would be special only for the Jewish people. Our sages pointed out in Rosh Hashanah 11 that Israel was redeemed from Egypt in Nissan and that the future redemption would again occur in that month. This is so because this month is a harbinger of good tidings for Israel. It is appropriate that Israel should begin the count of the months of the year by making Nissan the first month.

We have an ancient tradition that of the 12 months of the year 5 have 30 days each, whereas another five have 29 days each. The remaining two months sometimes have 29 days and other times 30 days. Sometimes, one of the two months in question has 30 days, whereas the other one has 29 days. The two months referred to are always Marcheshvan and Kislev. We also have an ancient tradition that the first day of the month of Tishrey is at the same time the first day of the New year. Every single month, according to tradition handed down since the time of Moses, consists (astronomically speaking) of 29 days 12 hours and 793 parts of the 1080 parts into which I hour (60 minutes) is divided in Jewish law.

הזה, this refers to the month known as ניסן in the Hebrew calendar. [How do we know this without having it spelled out for us? Ed.] The Torah describes the month in which the festival of huts falls, when the harvest has been brought in, as occurring at the time of the equinox. Exodus 34,22). It describes the festival of weeks as occurring during the early harvesting season for wheat, (same verse) and it describes the time when the Passover festival (matzot) occurs as being during the spring season, or more precisely as the month of the spring equinox. (Exodus 34,18) From all this it is clear that in order to comply with all these data the Sukkot festival can only occur during the month of Tishrey, and the Passover festival can only occur during the month of Nissan. It is spelled out even more clearly in the Book of Esther 3,7, “on the first month which is the month of Nissan.”

החודש הזה לכם, even though other nations do not know the institution of “new moon,” you will have such an institution, so that the months can be numbered by ordinal numbers, i.e. “the second, the twelfth,” etc. (compare Esther 3,7) This is the month from which you will begin dating important events in your history/calendar, for this is the month in which you attained your freedom as a people. Whenever the Torah refers to an event by naming the month in which it occurred or would occur, the ordinal number used is relative to this month, the month of Nissan, which rates as the “first” month. This is spelled out even more clearly in Exodus 19,1 בחודש השלישי לצאת בני ישראל ממצרים, “in the third month, after the Exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt.” The date of the Exodus from Egypt remained uppermost in the way our prophets recorded important historical events, as for instance, in Kings I 6,1 when the completion of Solomon’s Temple is dated as having occurred in the 480th year after the Exodus from Egypt.

Another reason that the Torah writes החודש הזה instead of writing חודש זה, is to allude to something or someone we are already familiar with. The reference to this known entity is G'd who is described in 15,2 as זה קלי, "this (One) is my G'd." The Torah alludes to the promise that it is this G'd who will orchestrate the redemption.

This tradition is spelled out in Chronicles I 12,32: ומבני יששכר יודעי בינה לעתים לדעת מה יעשה ישראל ראשיהם מאתים וכל אחיהם על פיהם,”and from the tribe of Issachar, men who knew how to interpret the signs of the times to determine how they should act, their chiefs were 200, and all their kinsmen followed them.” There is no discipline that requires greater wisdom than the calculation of the mysteries connected to when the lunar cycle renews itself.

הזה. Why did G-d have to use the word “this”? Moses faced the problem that the new moon does not become visible to us until about 18 hours into the fourth day of the month, and it is difficult to pinpoint that moment exactly. This problem has already been pointed out by the liturgist who added extra poetical text to the prayers recited on the Shabbat preceding the beginning of the month of Nissan in a poem commencing with the words: אבי כל חוזה. The poet there calls the period during which the new moon is not yet observable שלשים מרוצות, (apparently a name for standard length of races) A different explanation: Moses knew when the new moon commenced, (in the sky) but did not know from what point on it could be welcomed with the customary prayer. (Kiddush levanah) He did not know whether the correct time was when it started diminishing to the north or when it started diminishing towards the south. [The reader who is interested in the astronomical aspects of all this is referred to Rabbi Menachem Kasher’s Torah Shleymah, Genesis chapter 15 item 48 where G-d was described as instructing Avraham in some of these details. Ed.]

An additional meaning derived from the wording of this line is that Israel will be a ראש, head, as a result of what happened in this month. The numerical value of the word זה is 12, i.e. Nissan will be the first and most distinguished of these twelve months.

Once one has already seen the new moon, it is a well known fact that such a day is observed officially as the new moon and our festivals are calculated on that basis, for instances Passover on the 15th of the month of Nissan, etc. The calculation upon which the real renewal of the lunar cycle is based, known as מולד in our halachic literature, is something which is calculated not visually but astronomically by our sages, something which required special ordination for the people entrusted with that task [before the introduction of a permanent calendar. Ed.] The people would be informed by the result of the sages’ calculations when this still was required. They would accept this ruling without fail. This is the meaning of the words in Chronicles we have quoted: “and all their kinsmen followed them.”

לכם, “for you.” This lunar calendar is not intended for the gentiles. They are to continue to use the solar calendar.

You will find another reference to this subject in Samuel I 20,5 where David and Yonathan discussed the imminent celebration of the new moon, (2 days on that occasion). If the determination of the date of the new moon had depended on visual observation, how could David have known beforehand that the new moon would be observed both on the 30th of the month and the day following on that occasion, seeing the moon had not yet been sighted as yet? Clearly, the determination was made on the basis of astronomical data, and David was aware that in view of the previous month having been a month of 29 days that according to the astronomical data the new moon following would have to be observed on two days. The text there (verse 24-26) reads as follows: ויסתר דוד בשדה בשדה ויהי החודש וישב המלך על הלחם לאכול.. ולא דבר שאול מאומה ביום ההוא כי אמר מקרה הוא, בלתי טהור הוא....ויהי ממחרת החודש השני ויפקד מקום דוד. “David hid in the field. On the new moon the king sat down to eat and he did not say a word (about David’s absence) saying it is the result of seminal ejaculation, presumably he is ritually impure [and had no chance to immerse himself in a ritual bath. Ed.] so that he could not attend. It came to pass on the second new moon, etc.” [There follows the famous altercation between Yonathan and his father, etc, which I do not bother to repeat here as it is not really necessary for the author’s point to be made. Ed.] From the context of the story, it is quite impossible to understand the last words as applying to the celebration of the new moon on the following month.

ראש חדשים, the beginning of a count of months but not the beginning of the counting of years. The 7 annual sh’mittah cycle, the 49 year Jubilee year cycle, the period of planting i.e. the seasons and harvesting, are all not regulated by the lunar calendar but by the solar calendar, i.e. relying on summer, winter, fall and spring. This has been spelled out in the Torah in Deut. 31,10: “at the conclusion of seven years, during the season of when the year of sh’mittah, 'release’ begins during the festival of sukkot.”If the first day in the month of Nissan had been intended to serve as the first day of the year, why did the Torah not command us to read the relevant passage on the holiday of Passover? This would have taught us that the month of Nissan was also the first month of the year! If the Torah describes the festival of Sukkot as occurring at the end of the year, the festival of Passover which occurs before any harvest season, cannot possibly be at the beginning of the year. Clearly, the beginning of the year occurs near the festival of Sukkot.

It is clear therefore that even in the days of King Sha-ul arrangements had been made beforehand to observe 2 days of Rosh Chodesh. Such arrangements beforehand were based on the calculations of the Sanhedrin, Supreme Court. What was the custom in the days of King Shaul continued for a period of about 1100 years from the time of Moses until the days of Antignos the head of the Supreme Court during the early days of the Second Temple. When two of the students of this sage by the name of Tzadok and Beyssus heard their mentor say “do not be like the servants who serve their master because of the reward they expect to receive as compensation, but serve the master for altruistic considerations,” they began to question the entire foundations of Judaism, the concept of reward and punishment. They concluded that based on their mentor’s words there was no such concept in Judaism, and they began to live in a style which reflected their new found philosophical freedom. Once they had crossed this threshold they began to question the tradition of calculating the new moon astronomically rather than by visual observation, challenging the established authorities whose ruling was based on the oral Torah rather than on the written text as per our verse above i.e. the word זה, “this,” which implies visual observation. This was the beginning of the schism in Judaism, the heretics being known as צדוקים, based on the name of the originator Tzadok. Their basic argument was to challenge the tradition which did not clearly base itself on the written text of the Torah.
The Torah sages during that period saw themselves forced to counter the arguments of these people by proving that what they did based on tradition did not contravene the text of the written Torah, but that what had been the accepted manner in which the sages determined these dates was not only accurate but was always in harmony with the Torah.
Rabban Gamliel in Rosh Hashanah 25 already told his audience not to put too much stock into the need to actually see the new moon before the festival of the new moon could be observed, seeing that the astronomical data outweigh the importance of visual confirmation. He quoted a long family tradition to support his view. The calculation he referred to stated that the length of a lunar month is never shorter than 29 and a half days and 793 portions of the 1080 divisions into which the 13th hour is divided.
These words of Rabban Gamliel prove that he, who more than anyone else provided elaborate safeguards to prove if witnesses claiming to have sighted the new moon had spoken the truth, did not in fact base his decisions on the testimony of these eye-witnesses at all.

ראש חדשים, the first of the months. Seeing that this leaves open how many months there should be, the Torah adds: לחדשי השנה, “for the months making a up a year.”

There is also an entire Mishnah on the same folio in the Talmud which reads: “if the entire supreme Court as well as the people generally had come to testify to the sighting of the new moon, and the examination of the testimony had taken so much time that at the end it was already too late to declare that day as “new moon,” the following day would be declared as new moon. This Mishnah is clear proof that the Court did not have a tradition according to which the actual sighting of the new moon was the decisive factor in determining the calendar. If they did have a tradition that the sighting determines the dates, how could they have bothered to examine more than the necessary number of two witnesses and allow the opportunity to declare that date as new moon to go by without sanctifying it?.

ראשון הוא לכם, if not for this line I might have thought that when we have a leap year we should add an additional month of Nissan instead of an additional month of Adar. This would not work as the month of Nissan would also be the second month during that year. The Torah said specifically that the month of Nissan is to be (only) the first in a list of months. It did not distinguish between a year that has 13 months and a year that has twelve months. The Torah nowhere warned us against having a year of thirteen months (or more). The Torah decreed to offer the Passover during that month and called it “the first month.” It also decreed that at least part of the festival must occur during the season known as “spring,” i.e. after the spring equinox. It also decreed that the festival of Shavuot, 50 days after the beginning of Passover must occur during a season when wheat is already being harvested. (a period when the bikkurim, the first ripe fruit of the seven species for which the land of Israel is famous, may already be ready to be offered in the Temple.

An even more convincing proof is the following: The Talmud states there that if two witnesses arrived at the court and they testified: “we saw the new moon on the evening of what would have been the 30th of the month, and on the following evening we did not see it again,” Rabban Gamliel accepted this testimony as believable. If the court had based their determination on the sighting of the moon rather than on the astronomical calculations, surely the fact that the moon, according to their testimony, had not been visible on the following night must have proved that the witnesses had been lying! Rabban Gamliel’s acceptance then meant that he had calculated that the correct date was the date of the first sighting reported by the witnesses. Seeing that there was then a new month and the court had sanctified it this was the end of the matter. [the balance of their testimony was quite irrelevant. There are numerous other interpretations as to why Rabban Gamliel accepted these witnesses. All agree that Rabban Gamliel was not really interested in sightings when the sightings conflicted with his astronomical data. Ed.]

ראשון הוא לכם, “it is a first for you;” from now on this will be a first month for you, the reason being that you will start counting by months as a reminder of when you received your freedom from slavery. It will forever remind you of the Good that I have done for you. Up until now, the month of Tishrey had been the first month and Nissan the seventh. This agrees with what is written in Kings I, 8,2: בירח האיתנים בחג, “in the month of the original ones “ (the patriarchs, or in the months whom the early generations of mankind referred to) as the seventh month.”Yonatan ben Uzziel translates the word איתנים as “the ancient generations of man called it the first month and now it is the seventh month.”

The Talmud reports that in Rabban Gamliel’s study there were maps of the sky depicting different possible or impossible positions of the moon at the time of the new moon, which the Rabbi used to determine if the testimony of the witnesses could be relied on from an astronomical point of view. A major reason why Rabban Gamliel had these maps made was to prove to the followers of Tzadok and Beyssus that he was an expert of the orbit described by the moon at any time during the month. He would predict accordingly when the end of the cycle would occur after 29 days and when it would occur after 30 days. He taught his own students how to become thoroughly familiar with the position of the moon in the sky at any time of the month, allowing also for the variations of the moon’s position in the sky due to the season of the year. When he proved himself invariably correct month after month, year after year, the arguments of the opponents gradually were silenced. He still kept up the regular examinations of witnesses and they were encouraged to come forward as a reminder of the period when the matter had been a clouded issue.

לחדשי השנה, “of the moons of the year.” These months commence with Nissan, followed by lyar, Sivan, etc. This is the reason why they are not listed by name but number except in the Book of Chagay, Zecharyah, Daniel, Ezra and Nechemyah, (when the people were already in exile) Prior to this when a name is mentioned, it is not these names of Persian origin but name such as Ziv, Eytanim, and Bul fall in the Book of Kings).

All our sages agree that the source of investing the Sanhedrin with the authority of determining changes in the calendar goes back to Moses at Sinai, and that this authority has been used by the Sanhedrin. Any changes in rulings made in the past would have to have been authorized by another larger court superior to the original one in numbers and wisdom. The beginning of our chapter is the authority granted to Moses to determine our calendar.

That is to say, the power of the month will be for you, that you should be able to renew yourselves in Torah and in your actions. The Holy One of the Blessed Name gives to the Children of Israel this power. And even though it is apparent that this [the renewal] is not [organically] from them, since it is a renewal, the Holy One of the Blessed Name inscribes/seals Godself in that this is a renewal for you.

דברו אל כל עדת SPEAK UNTO ALL THE CONGREGATION — But did Aaron speak? Has it not already been stated, (Exodus 7:2) “You (Moses) shall speak etc.”. But the explanation is: they paid respect one to the other, saying to each other, “Instruct me what to say”. and the divine communication in question issued from both of them, so that it was as though they were both speaking (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:3:2).

THEY SHALL TAKE TO THEM EVERY MAN A LAMB, ACCORDING TO THEIR FATHERS’ HOUSES. The reason for this commandment is that the constellation of Aries (the Ram) is at the height of its power in the month of Nisan, it being the sign of the zodiac which ascends the heavens.¹¹⁶There are twelve signs or constellations in the zodiac, an imaginary belt encircling the heavens, revolving around the sun. Each month, another constellation begins the procession of the signs in their course around the heavens. The Ram is the first sign of the zodiac in the month of Nisan. Therefore He commanded us to slaughter the sheep and to eat it in order to inform us that it was not by the power of that constellation that we went out from Egypt, but by decree of the Supreme One. And according to the opinion of our Rabbis¹¹⁷In translating the words of Moses to Pharaoh, Lo, if we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, etc., (above, 8:22), Onkelos translated: “if we sacrifice that which the Egyptians worship.” In his Moreh Nebuchim (III, 46), Rambam also writes: “Scripture tells us, according to the version of Onkelos, that the Egyptians worshipped Aries, etc.” that the Egyptians worshipped it as a deity, He has all the more informed us through this that He subdued their gods and their powers at the height of their ascendancy. And thus the Rabbis have said:¹¹⁸Shemoth Rabbah 16:2. “Take you lambs and slaughter¹¹⁹Further, Verse 21. the gods of Egypt.”

דברו אל כל עדת ישראל לאמור, "speak to the whole community of Israel to say, etc." Why did G'd have to use the instruction דברו and could not make do with the method of communicating with the Israelites i.e. לאמור? In fact why did G'd not omit the word לאמור altogether and simply said: דברו? Moses' address could then have included both the information about the new moon as well as the details of preparing for the Passover. The word לאמור is altogether hard to comprehend since it is not clear to whom the Israelites were to communicate this new law about the Passover lamb.

לבית אבות, members of several families residing in the same house were in the habit of taking their meals together. They had to do this as the Passover offering could not be split up and consumed in more than one house. שה לבית, this means it was to be consumed in the same house, as per verse 15.

בעשור לחדש הזה ויקחו להם, “on the tenth of this month they shall take for themselves, etc.” The instruction was that the lamb should be taken or purchased on the tenth to be sacrificed on the fourteenth. Our verse teaches that a sacrificial animal be checked for blemishes for four days prior to being offered as a sacrifice. This is why it had to be “taken” i.e. set aside four days earlier.

Has it not already been stated “You speak?” Rashi’s words are difficult to understand. For perhaps when it says (Shemos 7:2): “You (Moshe) speak,” it means that Moshe speaks to Aharon, but to B’nei Yisrael, both speak together. Furthermore, even if it means that Moshe alone speaks, this was said in connection to Pharaoh, i.e., Moshe speaks alone when he is speaking to Pharaoh, but to B’nei Yisrael both speak. The answer is: Although it is written, “Aharon your brother will be your spokesman” (7:1), Moshe must first concisely tell the message to Pharaoh once, just as he heard it from Hashem. And that is the meaning of, “You (Moshe) speak.” Afterwards, Aharon will express it eloquently until it is palatable to Pharaoh. And the same is true regarding B’nei Yisrael, as it is written (4:16), “He will speak to the people for you.” Aharon will speak [eloquently] to the people for you, but [first] you must concisely tell them the message once. (Re”m)

VV. 3 — 6. עדה ,עדת von יער: bestimmen, ein durch die Einheit der Bestimmung verbundener Verein: Gemeinde. — בית אבות: das Elternhaus, das mehrere Familien umfassen kann, die alle noch um den gemeinschaftlichen Stammvater vereint sind. So kann בית אב einen ganzen Stamm umfassen (Bamidbar 17, 17). — בית: ein Haus für sich. — ואם ימעט הבית מהיות משה. Schwerlich findet sich eine Analogie dafür, dass היות מ־ Anteil an etwas haben oder zu etwas gehören bedeute. Dazu kommt, dass ja auch überhaupt ein Haus nicht zu klein sein kann, um Anteil an einem Lamm zu haben, sondern zu klein, um für sich allein ein Lamm zu haben, und wenn das hier gesagt werden sollte, so müsste es heißen: מהיות לו שה. Ohnehin ist ja auch im natürlichen Wege bereits durch die vorhergehende gesetzliche Bestimmung: שה לבית אבות für einen solchen Fall gesorgt, indem dort die Vereinigung mehrerer Häuser mit dem Stammhaus gestattet ist. היות מ־ heißt aber vielmehr fern von etwas sein, nicht zu etwas gehören, und ואם ימעט וגו׳, wenn das Haus zu klein werden sollte, dadurch, dass manche seiner Glieder nicht zu dem Lamme gehören wollen, und wäre demnach hier das statuiert, was auch die Halacha in diesem Satze ausgesprochen findet: בא הכתוב ללמרך שלעולם נמנין על הפסח ומושכין ידיהם ממנו עד שישחט(Mechilta zur Stelle; Peßachim 89a). Es heißt auch darum nicht ואם מעט הוא הבית וגו׳, sondern ואם ימעט וגו׳. Möglich jedoch, daß das משה מ— ein produktives מ ist, das Haus wird zu klein, um aus einem Lamme hervorzugehen, dann würde das Opfer als die Basis betrachtet, aus welcher das Haus resultiert, ein Begriff, der, wie wir sehen werden, vollständig der Bedeutung des Peßachopfers, namentlich der אכילת פסח, um die es sich hier zunächst handelt, entspricht. —במכסת נפשות so auch מכסת הערכך (Wajikra 27, 23) und ממס לד׳ (Bamidbar 31, 18). Da wir allerdings die Form ממר ליולדתו (Prov. 17, 25) von מרר finden und das sogleich folgende תכסו entschieden von כסס ist, so dürfte wohl auch מֶכֶס und מִכְפָה von כסם sein. Es ist aber die Bedeutung dieser Wurzel nicht einfach: zählen, sondern: ab- und zuzählen, d. h. durch zählen von einem Kreise ausscheiden und dem Kreise eines andern bestimmen, daher: Abgabe, Zoll, Tribut. Das Work ist verwandt mit גזז und קצץ, es liegt ihm somit die Bedeutung abschneiden, trennen, zu Grunde, der gewöhnliche Grundbegriff des Bestimmens im Hebräischen. Davon ja auch כוס, ein Gefäß von einem bestimmten Inhalt, in welchem jemandem das für ihn Bestimmte gereicht wird, im Gegensatz zu גביע und קובעת, welche das größere Trinkgefäß bedeutet und sich zu כוס wie eine Flasche zum Glase verhält. Also: Wenn durch Lossagung vom Lamme das Haus zu klein würde, so nehme er und sein Nachbar eines durch Zuteilung von Seelen, d. h. der Nachbar trete ihm zur Ergänzung seines Hauses Personen ab. — איש לפי אכלו וגו׳: jeden nach dem Verhältnis seines Essens, d. h. nach der Fähigkeit, von dem Lamme zu essen, sollt ihr hinzuzählen auf das Lamm. Nur eine Person, die von dem Lamme essen kann und essen soll, kann an demselben teilnehmen und nur für solche soll es von vornherein bestimmt sein. Daher der Satz: שחטו שלא לאוכליו ושלא למנוייו פסול (Peßachim 61 a.). Wir haben als Grundbedeutung der Wurzel כסס die Bedeutung: schneiden gefunden, und erklärt sich damit umsomehr der erläuternde Zusatz: רבי's: לשון סורסי הוא וגו׳ (siehe das. und תוספ׳ das.), dass in der Wahl dieses Ausdrucks zugleich die Halacha angedeutet ist, dass der Moment der שחיטה über die Bestimmung der Teilhaber entschieden und שחטו שלא .לאוכליו וגו׳ פסול

בעשור לחודש, “on the tenth day of the month;” the acquisition of the Paschal lamb in Egypt had to be made on the tenth of the month. There was a special reason for this. When the firstborn Egyptians saw what the Israelites were doing, they asked them for the reason of this. The Israelites explained that it was an offering to be offered when G–d would skip over the homes of the Israelites when He would slay the Egyptian firstborns as a punishment for their refusing to let the Israelites go. Upon hearing this, the firstborn Egyptians immediately went to the other Egyptians telling them to release the Israelites forthwith, accusing them of responsibility for their death in case they refused. Nonetheless, the other Egyptians refused. In fact, they themselves slew some of the firstborns in an altercation. This is what is meant when we read in Psalms 136,10: למכה מצרים בבכוריהם כי לעולם חסדו, i.e. the psalmist does not write: that G–d smote the Egyptian firstborns, but that the Egyptians killed their firstborn. (Compare Midrash Tehillim 136, as well as Yalkut Shimoni on that verse.) We read also in that Midrash that the tenth of the month of Nissan of that year occurred on a Sabbath so that Passover occurred on the Thursday following, as stated in the Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 87. When the Egyptians saw how the Jews made ready to cut the throats of their lambs they attacked them, as they were afraid of these animals, which were deities for them, and feared punishment for allowing their deities to be slain. G–d performed a miracle for the Israelites thus attacked and they were saved. This is the reason why the Sabbath prior to the Exodus is called שבת הגדול, “the great Sabbath.” Still we need to explore the reason why the tenth day in Nissan was chosen for the command to the Israelites to purchase, or if they had animals to set aside the respective animal for that sacrifice. According to Rashi, the Israelites were required to perform circumcision on themselves prior to being able to slaughter and to partake of the Paschal lamb. It would take them four days to recover from the wounds inflicted through their having circumcised themselves. (Attributed to Rabbi Yitzchok from Ibro.)

בעשור לחודש הזה, ויקחו להם, “on the tenth of this month, when they shall take or purchase for themselves etc.” The tenth of the month during that year was on a Sabbath. As a reminder of the fact that on that Sabbath the people collectively performed such a great commandment, it has since been named שבת הגדול, “the great Sabbath.” [Compare an article on this subject in the miluim to Torah shleymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher of blessed memory Ed.)

דברו אל כל עדת ישראל לאמר בעשר לחדש i. e. SPEAK to-day — on the first of the month — THAT ON THE TENTH OF THE MONTH they should take it (the lamb) (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:3:3).

שה לבית אבות שה לבית, “one lamb per family”, or if the family comprised many people “one lamb per household.”

Speak today, on the first of the month. . . I.e., “On the tenth of this month” does not refer to when to speak, rather when to take the lamb. Otherwise the verse should have stated, “On the tenth of this month לאמר (say), ‘they shall take. . .” Then it would mean, “Speak on the tenth.” But since לאמר comes before “On the tenth of this month,” it refers back to “on the first of the month.”

Perhaps the reason two expressions had to be used is quite simple. The law of the Passover comprised two aspects, 1) that Israel would be uplifted by showing their enemies how they themselves exacted retribution from their deities by slaughtering the sheep (compare Shemot Rabbah 16,3), and 2) performance of the command was accompanied by the threat that anyone failing to carry out this command would face death. The word לאמור is therefore appropriate for the first of the two aspects of this commandment, whereas the word דברו is appropriate for the instructions containing a warning about possible non-compliance. Another, secondary meaning of the word לאמור maybe that G'd instructed Moses and Aaron to exercise their authority gently.

ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם hatte Gott als positives Ziel der ägyptischen Geula angekündigt, nicht — um in der Vorstellungsweise und Sprache unserer Zeit zu reden — nicht eine ihn anbetende "kirchliche Gemeine" wollte Gott schaffen, ein "Volk", eine "Nation", eine "soziale" Gesamtheit, wie das Wort heißt, ein Staat sollte aus dieser Erlösung hervorgehen, dessen ganzes "soziales" Dasein in Gott wurzelnd, von Ihm erbaut, auf Ihm beruhend, von Ihm gestaltet und Ihm geweiht sein soll, und mit dem .legte Gott den Grundstein zu diesem Bau קרבן פסח

ויקחו להם איש שה, “they shall take for themselves, each, a lamb;” the significance of the animal “lamb” is that this was the zodiac sign of the month of Nissan. It was the sign that served as deity of good fortune to the Egyptians and would now forever become the reminder of good fortune to the people of Israel. By adopting this symbol and slaughtering a lamb as a sacrifice instead of worshipping it, the Jews demonstrated their faith in their G-d. They thereby neutralised any good fortune this constellation had ever had portended for the Egyptians.

הזה [ON THE TENTH OF] THIS [MONTH] — As regards the paschal lamb sacrificed in Egypt it had to be taken from the flock on the tenth, but this did not apply to the paschal-lamb offered by future generations (Pesachim 96a).

The korbon Pesach in Egypt. . . [Rashi knows this] because הזה (“this month”) excludes [any korbon Pesach brought in later years]. The Maharshal explains that [Rashi knows this] because otherwise the verse should have [reversed the order] and said, ויקחו להם בעשור לחודש , thus telling us that the taking is to be on the tenth. But the verse is written as it is, to tell us that only this time is the taking [of the korbon Pesach] on the tenth, but not for all generations.

Moses was also to communicate first with the elders as we find that he did in 12,21 where he is reported as having called in all the elders of Israel. The instruction דברו was intended to the elders, whereas the word לאמור teaches that he was also to communicate the details of the law to the entire nation.

Sehen wir, wie Gott einen Staat aufbaut.

שה לבית אבות, “one lamb for each family.” Even if in the same house the people who live there, as long as they are all living in that house, are to share that lamb, even if not of the same family; (unless they need more than one lamb in which case they will have to take two or more.)

שה לבית אבות A LAMB FOR THE HOUSE OF THEIR FATHERS — i. e. a lamb for one family (“family” here means the larger unit comprising the father or grandfather with his married sons and their families). Consequently, if they (the members of such a family) were numerous, one might think that they may take one lamb for all of them (irrespective of whether this would suffice to provide a piece as large as an olive, the minimum quantity, for each person)! Therefore Scripture states: שה לבית A LAMB FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:3:7).

[One lamb] per family. . . Later (v. 21), Moshe tells B’nei Yisrael to take “a lamb למשפחותיכם (for your families).” Thus we know that בית אבות [mentioned in our verse] is the same as משפחות . That is why Rashi explains למשפחותיכם (v. 21) to mean בית אבות .

ויקחו להם איש שה, "that they should each take a lamb for themselves, etc." The conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of this legislation is strange. Perhaps we have an allusion here to what Moses said to the Israelites later in verse 21 when he communicated the instructions received here. According to Shemot Rabbah 16,2 the word משכו contained a command to the Israelites to refrain henceforth from any idolatrous activity. This instruction did not emanate from G'd but was something Moses told the people on his own. On the other hand, seeing the way Moses told the people one gains the impression that G'd had communicated this to him as a prophetic insight. Perhaps the letter ו here at the beginning of the paragraph is proof that what Moses said in verse 21 and onwards was also part of the instructions he had received from G'd earlier. Precisely what did Moses mean with the word משכו?

Die Menschen, aus welchen er ihn erbaut, waren Sklaven. Als solche hatten sie keine Persönlichkeit, kein Eigentum, keine Familie — עבד גופו קנוי לרבו עבד, אין לו חיים ,עבד מה שקנה עבד קנה רבו —; mit dem Ausspruch: ויקחו להם איש gab Gott ihnen im hellen Anblick ihrer Herren (— am 10. Nissan, ein Tag vor Eintritt der Finsternis —) Persönlichkeit und Eigentum, und, indem einer für mehrere "nahm", und sodann auch einer für mehrere "schlachtete"; statuierte er eben damit sofort die "Gleichheit" aller vor Gott und dem Gesetze, indem einer für den andern zivilrechtlich und gottesdienstlich eine Handlung vollgültig vollziehen kann, ein Begriff, der in dem Satze: שלוחו של אדם כמותו (Kiduschin 41, 42) seinen Ausdruck findet. Indem aber das Gesetz איש hervorhebt, ist zugleich diese Vollberechtigung der Persönlichkeit an die mündige Reife des Alters geknüpft: איש זוכה ואין קטן זוכה (das. und תוספות) —

שה לבית, “one lamb per house.” The reason why each house needs to have at least one lamb was to prove that in each house the people eating the lamb have first proved to have fulfilled G-d’s commandment to kill an Egyptian deity and consume it.

Seeing that Moses told the people to purchase the lamb on the tenth of the month people would think that those who bought it on that date could slaughter it whereas those who had failed to purchase it or set it aside on the tenth could not buy it on the 11th the 12th or the 13th, therefore Moses added the words "and they may purchase it" to indicate that even if they bought the lamb after the tenth of the month it would still qualify as a sacrifice. All this we derive from the word ויקחו which is preceded by the conjunctive letter ו. The Mechilta on our verse arrives at the ruling about purchasing the lamb on the 11th, 12th, or 13th of the month by a process called a fortiori, simple logic. If something can be deduced by that method and in addition we find an allusion in the text this reinforces our opinion.

Und die zu berechtigter Selbständigkeit aufgerichteten einzelnen sammelt Gottes staatbauendes Wort zuerst in Familien, und knüpft das Familienband aufwärts, das Band der Kinder an die Eltern, das selbst die verheirateten Kinder mit ihren Kindern noch um Großvater und Urgroßvater zum בית אבות eint, und das Familienband abwärts, das Band der Eltern an die Kinder, das die Kinder wieder selbständige Häuser gründen lässt, in welchen sie also ihren Kindern und in ihren Kindern weiter leben, wie ihre Eltern ihnen gelebt und in ihnen weiter leben. Aber auch dies häuserbauende Familienband aufwärts soll in diesem Staate ein freies sein und kennt keine zwingende Hörigkeit, es statuiert sofort die Möglichkeit, אם ימעט הבית וגו׳, der nach freier Selbstbestimmung sich gruppierenden Häuser: אינו שוחט על ידי בנו ובתו הגדולים ועל ידי עברו ושפחתו העברים ועל ידי אשתו אלא מדעתן (Peßachim 88.a.).

Inasmuch as both the words להם and איש in our verse seem superfluous at first glance seeing that all the Torah had to write was ויקחו שה לבית, we are entitled to derive additional meanings from these words. In a similar situation where the letter ו at the beginning of the word ויקחו seems strange, (Exodus 25,2) Tanchuma understands the letter as including G'd Himself. Here is what Tanchuma has to say there: "G'd said to them: 'take Me with you."' [This would suggest that the gifts the Israelites donated for the Tabernacle would ensure that G'd's presence would dwell amongst them. I have not found this text in my edition of the Tanchuma. Ed.] In our situation, considering that these were the first commandments addressed to the Jews as a people, G'd may also have suggested that performance of these commandments would ensure His Presence amongst the Israelites and that even the Gentiles would become aware of this as pointed out in Deut. 28,10. Sotah 42 claims that on occasion the word איש refers to the Almighty, such as in Samuel I 17,8 where Goliath blasphemes, provoking G'd to battle against him. Here too the word איש may be an allusion to G'd whom Moses called איש מלחמה in Exodus 15,3. The Tikkuney Zohar section 29 demonstrate that the word מצוה contains half of the Ineffable Name at the end, and the other half at the beginning if one applies the method known as aleph tav, bet shin when reading the alphabet. [The letter צ would correspond to the letter ה, whereas the letter מ would correspond to the letter י. Ed.] According to this the Torah hints that by means of this מצוה the Jewish people would make a great acquisition (לקיחה) i.e. they would establish a claim on G'd.

Das Recht, das den Menschen Selbständigkeit, Gleichheit, Freiheit und Eigentum verleiht, die Bande des Blutes und der Wahl, die die Menschen in Häuser sammelt und sondert, das ist die Basis des Gottesstaates. Allein das Recht ist ein scheidendes Element, das Menschen und Häuser auf sich selber und gegen Eingriff anderer sicher stellt. Was ist der Kitt nun, der Häuser an Häuser nähern und im jüdischen Staate aus der Familie die Gesellschaft hervorgehen lässt? Ist es, wie in andern Staaten bauenden Systemen, die Not, das Bedürfnis, die berechnende Schwäche, die Hilfsbedürftigkeit, die den einzelnen aus egoistischer Vereinzelung reißen und aus Sorge für das eigene Ich ihm die Mitsorge für den Nachbar nahe legen soll? Es ist allerdings auch eine Not, auch ein Bedürfnis, allein es ist die Not des Überflusses, es ist das Bedürfnis der Pflichterfüllung. אם ימעט הבית וגו׳ spricht das den jüdischen Staat bauende Wort, nicht der Arme bedarf des Reichen, der Reiche bedarf des Armen: "Wessen Haus zu klein ist für den Segen, den Gott ihm verliehen, der suche sich den Nachbar auf, dass er ihm Seelen leihe, denen er seinen Überfluss zugute kommen lassen könne, die ihm zur Erfüllung seiner Pflichtaufgabe verhelfen!! Den Armen kann Gott ohne den Reichen nähren. Aber der Reiche kann ohne den Armen seine Lebensaufgabe nicht erfüllen, und nicht die Not, das Pflichtbewusstsein, מצוה, soll im jüdischen Gottesstaat Haus an Haus zur Volksgesellschaft einen. Erst aus dieser durch משפט gesicherten, durch צדקה verbundenen konkreten Volksgesellschaft tritt dann die formale staatliche Gliederung mit ihren Spitzen in קהל עדת ישראל hervor, ישראל: die Volksgesamtheit, — עדה: die die Volksbestimmung tragenden selbständigen Glieder: die Gemeine, — קהל: die verwaltende und leitende Spitze: die Repräsentanz, wie dies denn auch in den ג׳ כתות der שחיטת הפסח verewigt blieb (Peßachim 64 a.).

I have been puzzled why G'd did not specifically exclude the people who were either Gentiles, uncircumcised, or had contracted impurity through contact with the dead from offering and eating the Passover lamb, just as He legislated for the future observance of the Passover holiday (12,43-46 as well as Numbers chapter 9). Whereas we have pointed out in our commentary on Numbers 19,2 that there was a good reason for not permitting the ritually impure to participate in that commandment in subsequent years, there remains the question why the proselytes and the uncircumcised were not excluded from participating in the original passover lamb in Egypt? According to our sages as interpreted by Shemot Rabbah 19,6 based on Ezekiel 16,6 the blood mentioned there was the combined blood of circumcision and the blood of the paschal lamb the Israelites offered prior to the Exodus and which G'd "kissed" in appreciation of the readiness for martyrdom the Israelites demonstrated on that occasion. Our sages also interpret on Exodus 12,21 that the word משכו implies that the Israelites first had to divest themselves of any remnants of idolatrous conduct. This would include circumcision. They would have to become full-fledged members of the Jewish people before they qualified for participation in this great מצוה. These are all very fine exegetical points, but they do not address our question why G'd had not spelled out these conditions explicitly, seeing that our chapter contains so many details about this מצוה.

Alle einzelnen, alle Häuser, alle Familien, die ganze Gesamtheit im Ganzen und Einzelnen soll sich aber in diesem Momente ihres Neuerstehens Gott gegenüber als שה darstellen, alles aufgehen in den einzigen Begriff צאן מרעיתו zu sein, Gott als seinen Hirten, als den רועה ישראל zu begreifen und sich feiner Führung und Leitung bereit zu stellen. Dieser Begriff, der uns Gott als unseren Hirten und uns als seine Herde denken lässt, ward von dem Augenblick, in welchem Gott unsere "Führung" übernahm, der allgemeinste, bleibende, unter welchem wir unsere Beziehungen zu Gott und Gottes Beziehungen zu uns zu denken erhielten, und das כבש אחד בבקר und כבש אחד בין in welchem Israel fortan Tag für Tag beim steigenden und sinkenden Strahl ,הערבים sich seinem Gotte darzustellen und hinzugeben hatte, war nichts als die Fortsetzung und Wiederholung dieses ersten Momentes, in welchem es als שה seinen Gang durch die Geschichte antrat und Gott als dem רועה ישראל, als dem נוהג כצאן יוסף seine Führerschaft überließ. Es ist aber das jüdische "Lamm" nicht das "Leiden der Welt tragende", den Grabesgang zur Schlachtbank wandelnde, demütige und wehmütige Wesen: שה תמים זכר בן שנה יהיה לכם unverstümmelt, männlich, in ewiger Jugendfrische soll es die Ideen unseres Wesens zum Ausdruck bringen, ganz und selbständig und doch immer jung, nimmer der göttlichen Leitung entwachsend, soll die Herde Gottes sein, wir mögen uns als כבש oder als עז in unserer sozialen Stellung fühlen, מן הכבשים ומן העזים תקחו. Innerhalb der צאן-Gattung ist die Wahl zwischen Schaf oder Ziege gelassen. Letztere, עז, trägt den Charakter größerer Selbständigkeit nach außen und heißt daher עז Widerstand leisten: die Ziege weist jedem Fremden die Hörner, ist aber dem Hirten so folg- und gefügsam wie das Schaf.

At the end of our paragraph, (verse 43) after Moses has dealt with the preparations for the Exodus, the Torah legislates the way Passover is to be observed in the future, as a reminder of the Exodus. We find there that a בן נכר and an עבד כעני, a Gentile or a slave whose body is owned by a Jew must not participate in the Passover. Ibn Ezra writes that the whole paragraph starting with verse 43 refers to observance of the Passover by future generations. This was why G'd used that opportunity to add other details which did not apply to the observance of the original Passover in Egypt whereas other details such as the blood which had to sprinkled on the doorposts did not need to be repeated as they would not apply in the future. If he meant that the law about the בן נכר and ערל were new additions, to be observed by future generations only, Ibn Ezra would be in direct contradiction to the traditional views we have cited. Besides, how does he deal with 12,50 where the Torah reports the Israelites as having observed the Passover in accordance with the instructions Moses and Aaron had received from G'd? Surely the Torah would not have written: "the Israelites carried out, etc." if the previous paragraph had dealt only with the observance of the Passover in the future! Ibn Ezra's comment that verse 50 speaks of the observance of the Passover while the Israelites were in the desert seems devoid of any basis in fact. It is unlikely that anyone will take these comments of Ibn Ezra seriously.

והיה לכם למשמרת. Vier Tage lang war der Sinn auf dieses Lamm zu richten, es in seiner Vollständigkeit, vor jeder Verstümmelung zu schützen — טעון ביקור ד׳ תמים - ימים, ganzen Menschen in allen seinen Beziehungen ist die Grundbedingung eines jeden קרבן's, eines jeden Nähertretens zu Gott, wie die Präliminarbedingung des Abrahambündnisses lautet: התהלך לפני והיה תמים.

I have found the following comment in the Mechilta on 12,43: "Scripture deals here with both the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of subsequent generations, these are the words of Rabbi Yoshiah. Rabbi Yonathan says that the passage deals with the Passover in Egypt. Whence do I know what rules apply to subsequent Passovers? Scripture says: "in accordance with all its statutes and all its social laws you shall perform it" (Numbers 9,3). According to the foregoing all the Tannaim of the period agreed that the paragraph in question speaks about observance of the Passover in Egypt, thus Ibn Ezra's words are to be disregarded completely.

בין הערבים, zwischen den beiden ערבים, zwischen den beiden "Tag- und Nachtmischungen" der einen, wo bereits die Nacht in den Tag sich mischt, der andern, wo noch der Tag in die Nacht gemischt ist; der einen, wo die Dämmerung des Tages beginnt, der andern, wo der letzte Tagesstrahl aus der Nacht scheidet, also zwischen dem Augenblick, in welchem die Sonne bereits über den Zenit hingegangen bis zum Beginn der eigentlichen Nacht, es ist dies der ganze Nachmittag des 14. Nissan. Es war dies der Scheidepunkt zwischen dem 14., der noch der Knechtschaft angehörte, und dem mit der Nacht beginnenden, aber mit dem Nachmittage schon hereindämmernden 15., der die Erlösung und die Freiheit bringen sollte. Dieser Moment, in welchem nach außen die Erlösung, das וגאלתי אתכם בזרוע וגו׳, und nach innen die Erwählung, das ולקחתי beginnen sollte, sollte Israel dadurch vorbereiten, dass es sich für solche אתכם לי לעם Erwählung in allen seinen Gliedern und Kreisen der Gottesführung als "die Schafe seiner Herde" bereit zu stellen und durch שחיטה das völlige Aufgeben alles bisherigen und sonstigen Seins zum Ausdruck zu bringen hatte.

It is therefore possible that when the Torah wrote ויקחו with the extra letter ו, it referred to additional commandments over and above that of circumcision and the need to remove all vestiges of idol worship. The commandment referred to would be the restrictions on the בן נכר and the ערל, the uncircumcised Israelite as outlined in the paragraph commencing with verse 43.

ואם ימעט הבית מהיות משה — This means: if they are too few to be sufficient for one lamb — that they are unable to eat the whole of it, and it would therefore come under the category of נותר “left over”. ולקח הוא ושכנו וגו׳ THEN LET HIM AND HIS NEIGHBOUR TAKE etc. — This is what these words and those that precede it imply in its literal sense, but there is also a derivation from it of a Halachic character — that the verse intends to teach that after they have counted themselves (formed themselves into a company) for it, they may reduce their number by withdrawing from it and may register themselves for a different lamb; but if they intend to withdraw and thereby reduce their number מהיות משה — they must reduce only whilst the lamb is still in being — whilst it is alive (מחיות משה = מהיות משה) — and not after it has been slaughtered (Pesachim 89a; cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:4:1).

ושכנו הקרוב אל ביתו. Even though numerous Egyptian families might have lived between the house of the Israelite and the nearest house occupied by another Israelite, such an Israelite is described by the Torah as “his neighbour,” seeing that he is closer to his house than the houses of other Jews.

ואם ימעט הבית, If the household be too small, etc. This verse can be explained satisfactorily both according to the view of Rabbi Yossi and the view of Rabbi Yehudah who have conflicting views reported in Pessachim 99 in a situation where the two lambs of two different families have become mixed up and the members of the respective families are not sure to which animal they belong. According to Rabbi Yehudah it is sufficient if one member of each family partakes of both animals in order to fulfil the condition laid down in our verse, i.e. if the number of people originally designated to eat from one lamb had somehow shrunk. Rabbi Yehudah considers the operative part of the verse אם ימעט הבית מהיות משה as the diminutive word ימעט, reduced number, but not total absence. Rabbi Yossi holds that as long as either one of the two animals is not temporarily without anyone committed to eat from it, neither one is disqualified. Rabbi Yossi pays especial attention to the words מהיות משה, i.e. to leave that lamb as temporarily not belonging to anyone.

ואם ימעט, in the event they are unable to eat it all at one sitting.

ואם ימעט הבית מהיות משה, “but if the household is too small for one lamb,” i.e. if there would be leftovers from that lamb due to an insufficient number of people sharing it.

While the lamb still exists, while it is still alive. . . I.e., our Sages [change the ה of מהיות to a ח , and] interpret מהיות משה (while the lamb still exists) as מחיותו דשה (while the lamb is still alive); because the letters אחע"ה are interchangeable.

Daraus, dass geboten ist, die Monatsanfänge nach wirklicher Wahrnehmung des wiedergekehrten neuen Lichtes zu bestimmen, מצוה לקדש על פי הראיה, haben diejenigen, welche die jüdische Vergangenheit nicht tief genug in dem Bewusstsein der zeitgenössischen Gegenwart herabsetzen zu können vermeinen, den Unsinn doziert, es habe uranfänglich die astronomische Kenntnis des Mondumlaufs den Juden gefehlt, eine Berechnung des Mondumlaufs hätten sie erst nach vielen Jahrhunderten von den Griechen zu lernen gehabt, und sich bis dahin mit dem rohen Notbehelf jedesmaliger Erwartung der neuen Monderscheinung begnügen müssen. Wir haben dies einen Unsinn genannt, weil sich ja auf bloße Wahrnehmung des neuen Mondes gar keine Zeitrechnung gründen lässt, da ja bei bewölktem Himmel Wochen vorübergehen können, ohne dass eine solche Wahrnehmung möglich wäre, ja, schon das bloße Abwarten einer solchen Wahrnehmung eine Berechnung der Möglichkeit voraussetzt. In der Tat lehrt auch ת׳׳שב׳׳פ׳, dass den Bestimmungen der Monatsanfänge die Berechnung des Momentes der Sichtbarwerdung des Mondes zu Grunde lag und an den Ergebnissen dieser Berechnung die Aussagen der Zeugen über die Wahrnehmung zu kontrollieren waren, sowie dass, wenn am dreißigsten Tage keine Zeugen erschienen waren, dann der einunddreißigste Tag ohne Wahrnehmung zum Monatanfang wurde. (Siehe R. H. 23, 24. 25). Konnte doch schon David zum Jonathan sagen: הנה הדש מחר, er wusste also schon am Tage zuvor, dass des andern Tages Monatsanfang sein werde (Sam. I. 20, 5). Ja, es ist aus dem ויהי ממחרת החדש השני (daselbst 27) ersichtlich, dass schon zu Sauls Zeiten auch zwei Tage ראש חדש gefeiert worden, ganz wie bei uns, eine Einrichtung, die nur auf der aus Berechnung des Mondumlaufs hervorgehenden Abwechslung des מלא und הסר beruht. Unmöglich kann nämlich dort das השני den zweiten Tag des Monats bedeuten, da die ganze Verabredung auf dem Umstande beruht, dass zur Neumondsfeier eine Tafel beim Könige gehalten wurde, an welcher jeder zur Umgebung des Königs Gehörige zu erscheinen hatte. Es war vielmehr der zweite Neumondstag, wie auch Jonathan übersetzt: והוה ביומא דבתרוהי דהוא עיבור ירחא תנינא. Ebenso V. 34: ביום עיבור ירחא תנינא :תי" ,ולא אכל ביום החדש השני. (Auffallend ist es, dass ת"י den einunddreißigsten Tag יום עכור nennt; sonst wird dieser Name nur dem dreißigsten Tage gegeben. Siehe R. H. 19 b. und Raschi zu ליל עבורו das. 25 a.)

תכוסו על השה, “you shall be numbered;” (contribute financially to the purchase of the lamb.) The commandment is repeated to teach that the sacrificial animal is ritually disqualified if it was not slaughtered specifically for the people in that house who had become partners or been invited for eating of it. (Pessachim 78)

במכסת means ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER. Similar is, (Leviticus 27:23) “The number (מכסת) of thy valuation”.

במכסת, “the number of.” We have a similar expression meaning the same in Numbers 31,37 ויהי המכס לה' מן הצאן. The letter מ in the word מכס is not a prefix just as it is not a prefix in the word מלך, but is a basic component of the noun. The construction במכסת is similar to the construction of במתג ורסן in Psalms 32,9 where the meaning is “with a bit and bridle.” It is also parallel to the expression שכבת הטל, “a layer of dew” in Exodus 15,14. On the other hand, the word תכוסו is derived from the root כסס, similar to the word תסובו which is derived from the root סבב. (Joshua 6,4). This word תכוסו in our verse is not related to the word מכס in Numbers 31,37 at all. Even if we were to consider the letter מ in the word מכס as a preposition or other addition of some kind, so that it would not be part of the noun just as the letter מ in the word מצוה, “commandment,” is not pat of the actual noun which is derived from the root צוה, or as the letter מ in the word מקנה is not part of the noun, the root of which is קנה, or words such as מעשה or מראה, the letter מ would only camouflage the root כסה, being parallel to such roots as עשה and ראה. Those roots, however, normally have an abbreviated vowel after the first root letter that has been omitted, as in תקומה from קם or תשובה from שב. In our verse, however, no such abbreviated vowel appears to signal that a root letter has been omitted.

ולקח הוא ושכנו, “then an individual and his neighbour shall take” (a lamb between them). The Torah is concerned with each Israelite’s financial resources. This concern is expressed on four separate occasions, the first one being the Passover legislation. Seeing that leftovers of this lamb had to be burned (could not be saved for the next day), the Torah demonstrated its concern for each Israelite’s financial position even before legislating (verse 10) what was to be done with the leftovers, by allowing two biologically unrelated Israelites to share such a lamb.
The second instance in which the Torah displays similar concern for our pocketbooks is in Leviticus 7,24 where it states that the fat of an animal which had died (of natural causes) and the fat of an animal that had been torn to death may be put to any use (other than your eating it).
A third such instance is found in Deut. 14,21 where the carcass of an animal which died by a cause other than by ritual slaughter may be sold to Gentiles or given as a gift to resident non-Jewish strangers. The fourth instance of legislation designed to ease the financial burden on Israelites is found in Leviticus 14,36 and deals with the contents of a house about to be declared ritually impure. Although it was clear that the priest would condemn the house to be torn down and its contents to be destroyed, as long as the priest has not made his declaration the Torah permits the owner to remove such contents to save them from being destroyed.

Each according to his fitness to eat. . . [Rashi is answering the question:] The korbon Pesach is eaten only after one is full. If so, why does it go according to how much a person eats, [if he has already eaten his fill]? Thus Rashi explains לפי אכלו as one who is fit to eat [a kezayis].

The verse may also tell us that the lamb must be big enough to provide a minimum of an olive size's amount of meat for every member of that household.

Eine Vergegenwärtigung der "die Heiligung der Monatsanfänge" betreffenden Bestimmungen lehrt ja ohnehin, dass Bedeutung und Zweck dieses Gesetzes ein ganz anderer und höherer sein müsse, als eine astronomisch genaue Regulierung der Zeitrechnung, dass die genaueste astronomische Berechnung dieser Bestimmung allerdings zu Grunde liege, dass es aber nicht der planetarische Vorgang ist, der unsere Monatsanfänge fixiert und dem unsere Neumondsfeier gilt.

לפי אכלו [EVERY MAN] ACCORDING TO HIS EATING — every man who is fitted to eat the quantity prescribed by the Law; this excludes a sick person and an aged person who are unable to eat a portion the size of an olive (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:4:5).

You will be counted. Rashi cites Onkelos who translates it as תתמנון so we will not say that תכוסו means, “you will count others.” (Re”m) However, it seems to me that Rashi [cites Onkelos] so we will not say that תכוסו means, “you will slaughter.” [We might think this because] “Do not slaughter” (Vayikra 22:28) is translated by Onkelos as לא תכסון . And so is תכוסו interpreted in the Talmud. (Nachalas Yaakov)

The verse may also be understood as a blessing. If someone has a large family and the family cannot afford much, the lamb will nevertheless provide an adequate amount of meat for every member thereof because consumption of the meat is for the sake of fulfilling G'd's commandment.

Stellen wir einige der schlagendsten Momente zusammen: Schon die ganze Prozedur des קידוש החדש hebt diese Institution aus dem Bereiche einer Ovation des planetarischen Naturvorganges und drückt ihm den entschiedenen Stempel menschengesellschaftlicher Beziehung auf. "משפט" ist der Charakter der Prozedur, die daher nur am Tage, und zwar in charakteristischer Unterscheidung vom Zivilprozess — selbst in ihrem ganzen Verlauf am Tage geschehen muss. (R. H. 25 b.) Es ist auch nur ein Kollegium von dreien kompetent, und zwar wiederum, im Verhältnis zum Zivilprozess, in gesteigerter Ausschließlichkeit (das.). Während ferner zur Konstatierung aller sachlichen Verhältnisse ein Zeuge hinreicht, עד א' נאמן באיסורים, sind hier, wie in allen persönlichen Beziehungen, zwei Zeugen erforderlich (R. H. 22 a.). Dass aber überhaupt nicht der planetarische Vorgang am Himmel die Monatsanfänge bewirkt und etwa die jüdische Gesetzesbehörde nur von dem Vorgang Akt zu nehmen habe, das liegt in Bestimmungen wie: ראוהו ב"ד וכל ישראל נחקרו העדים ולא הספיקו לומר מקודש עד שחשיכה הרי זה מעובר (das. 25 b.) bis zur Evidenz klar. Es betrifft den Fall, dass am dreißigsten, noch am Tage, der Neumond von der Behörde und von ganz Israel gesehen, oder die Zeugen, die ihn gesehen, bereits vollständig verhört worden, es aber Nacht geworden, bevor das die Nation vertretende Kollegium sein מקודש "er ist geheiligt" ausgesprochen; es ist dann der dreißigste nicht der Monatsanfang, obgleich die Erscheinung des neuen Mondlichtes von allen wahrgenommen oder die Wahrnehmung völlig konstatiert ist, und erst mit dem einunddreißigsten beginnt der Monat. Hier ist es schlagend, dass nicht der Vorgang am Himmel, sondern die weihende Bestimmung der jüdischen Gesamtheitsrepräsentanz den Monatsanfang bedingt. Dieser, den Monatsanfang bestimmende Gesamtheitsausspruch ist eben das, worauf das Gebot: אלה מועדי ד׳ מקראי קדש אשר תקראו אתם במועדם (sich bezieht, und es ist eben der Begriff (Wajikra 23, 4) מועד, der, wie uns scheint, allen diesen Bestimmungen zu Grunde liegt. Denn auch ר׳׳ח heißt מועד, ja, wie wir sehen werden, ist er eben der allgemeine Moëdbegriff an sich, ohne, wie die andern Moadim, durch geschichtliche und jahreszeitliche Beziehungen, noch durch ein besonderes Merkmal nuanciert zu sein. Vielmehr, wie die andern Moadim durch geschichtliche und jahreszeitliche Ereignisse veranlasst sind, so ist der Neumondmoëd eben durch die Neulichterscheinung des Mondes veranlasst. (Siehe R. Hasch. 21b. תוספ .(דה׳ על שני וגו׳

תכסו means ye shall number yourselves, as the Targum renders it. (It is not to be translated: ye shall number others.)

לפי אכלו תכסו על השה, "according to every man's eating you shall make your count for the lamb." According to Pessachim 88 this means that a father may slaughter the Passover lamb on behalf of his wife and his children who are minors without having to consult them first. Pessachim 87 also teaches that a married woman who was still in the habit of frequenting her father's home, and who finds that both her husband and her father have included her as potential participants in their respective Passover offerings, has the choice to decide to which household she wishes to belong for the purpose of consuming the Passover. This is based on the words לפי אכלו meaning "according to where she is in the habit of taking her meals."

מועד, von יעד eine Vereinigung bestimmen (verwandt mit יהד) heißt: ein zu einer Zusammenkunft bestimmter Ort (daher אהל מועד ,ונוערתי לך שם) oder: eine zu einer Zusammenkunft bestimmte Zeit. Dies letztere hier. מועדים sind zu unserm Zusammenkommen mit Gott bestimmte Zeiten. Dieses Zusammenkommen soll, um mit menschlichem Ausdruck zu sprechen, von beiden Seiten ein freies sein. Es ist nicht der Herr, der seine Knechte zu sich zitiert. Es ist Gott, der sein Volk zu sich wünscht, der daher die Zeit des zu-Ihm-Kommens nur im allgemeinen bestimmt, einen Spielraum gewährend, die genauere Bestimmung innerhalb dieses Spielraums seinem Volke überlässt, so dass die Zeit des Zusammenkommens aus beiderseitiger Wahl hervorgeht. Wir betonen das: beiderseits. Wären unsere Monatsanfänge und somit auch die daran geknüpften Festtage genau an die astronomische Planetenphase gebunden, also dass z. B. der Mondesumlauf von selbst den Moëd und die Moadim brächte, so erschienen wir und — s.v.v. — unsere Gottheit unter dem Bann des mit blinder Notwendigkeit sich abwickelnden Naturlaufes, und vor allem unser Neumondmoëd böte der Idololatrie eines Naturkultus den mächtigsten Vorschub. Gerade das eben soll es aber nicht sein. Ja, diesem, gerade hier so nahe liegenden, verführenden verderblichen Schein soll nachdrücklichst begegnet werden. Nicht die Konjunktion, nicht das Wiederzusammenfinden des Mondes und der Sonne und die Neubestrahlung jenes von dieser bewirkt den Monatsanfang und nicht ihr gilt die Neumondsfeier. Vielmehr mit jedem Wiederzusammenfinden des Mondes mit der Sonne und seiner Wiederneubestrahlung von ihr will Gott, dass sich sein Volk wieder zu Ihm finde und Neubestrahlung von seinem Lichte empfange, wo und wie immer es auf seiner Laufbahn der Verdunkelung erlegen. Das Wiederzusammenfinden des Mondes mit der Sonne ist nur und Veranlassung unseres Wiederzusammenfindens mit Gott, die Erneuung des Mondes Vorbild und Veranlassung unserer Erneuung. Moëd ist buchstäblich: Konjunktion.

Another rule we learn from this verse (Pessachim 90) is that a person who is obligated to bury a near relative maybe included in the count for a Passover lamb though at the time the lamb is being slaughtered he is not yet under an obligation to fulfil this commandment due to his prior obligation to attend to the burial. The operative word is לפי אכלו meaning that as long as he is fit to eat it in the evening.

Nicht daher der astronomische Vorgang und die astronomische Berechnung, wir, unsere Gesamtheitsrepräsentanz hat unsere "חדש" zu schaffen und den Tag unseres מועד, unseres Zusammenfindens mit Gott zu bestimmen. Daher die Bestimmung: מצוה לקדש ע׳׳פ ראיה, dass nicht schon die objektive astronomische Gewissheit genüge, sondern auch die subjektive Wahrnehmung gewünscht wird; daher wohl auch die Bestimmung, dass der positive Ausspruch מקודש nur אם נראה בזמנו wesentlich war, d.h. nur dann die Neumondsweihe von dem Ausspruch der Gesamtheitsrepräsentanz bedingt war, wenn die Neumondsweihe mit der wirklichen Wahrnehmung zusammenfällt, in welchem Falle vor allem die Neumondsfeier vor dem Schein eines Naturkultus zu bewahren war, nicht aber wenn der Monat מעובר, wenn der wirkliche Tag der Erscheinung bereits überschritten war (das. 24, 9). Daher endlich die Möglichkeit, ja die ganze tiefe Wesenhaftigkeit der Sätze: מעברין את החדש לצורך (das. 20 a) aus Gesamtheitsrücksichten — wie z. B. damit nicht י׳׳כ und שבת unmittelbar aufeinanderfolgen — kann die Gesamtheitsrepräsentanz den Monatsanfang auf den einunddreißigsten Tag bestimmen, obgleich der Neumond bereits am dreißigsten wahrgenommen worden; und vor allem die Sätze: אתם אפי׳ שוגגין אתם אפי׳ אתם אפי׳ מזידין מוטעין, selbst wenn aus Irrtum, oder mit; Bewusstsein, oder irre geleitet (durch falsche Zeugen), der Monatsanfang auf einen andern Tag, als den eigentlich durch die Wahrnehmung des Neumonds gegebenen war bestimmt worden, אן לי מועדות אלא אלו erkenne doch Gott keine anderen "Moëdtage" als die von der Gesamtheitsrepräsentanz bestimmten an und behalten dieselben ihre völlige Gültigkeit. חידוש הלבנה soll ja nur Veranlassung werden zu unsern חדשים. Daher aber auch die ganz besonders wesenhafte Bedeutung des י׳׳ט שני gerade für Zeiten, die — leider — בקי בקביעא דירחא sind. Es kann nämlich nur die beschränkteste Unkunde in unserm בקיאות בקביעא דירחא, d. h. in dem Umstande, dass wir nicht mehr im Zweifel über den jedesmaligen Monatsanfang sind, einen zu bejubelnden Vorzug erkennen. Diese unsere Gewissheit resultiert ja nur aus dem beklagenswerten Umstande, dass wir durch die Zerstreuung einer durch סמיכה autorisierten Gesamtheitsrepräsentanz entbehren, die auf Grund jedesmaliger Wahrnehmung, ע׳׳פי ראיה unsere Monatsanfänge für die Gesamtheit heiligend bestimmen könnte. Dadurch fehlte unsern Neumonden und Moadim aber der wesentlichste Charakter, der sie zu unsern Neumonden und zu unsern Zusammenfindungszeiten mit Gott weihet, wenn nicht die weise Voraussicht unserer letzten Gesamtheitsrepräsentanz in Hillel dem Jüngern diesem Mangel durch heiligende Ansetzung aller Monatsanfänge für alle Zeiten der Zerstreuung bis zur einstigen Wiedersammlung subsidiarisch abgeholfen hätte. Eben aber weil in dieser Golazeit unsere Monatsanfänge und demgemäß unsere Moadim von vorhinein fixiert und durch einen unabänderlichen Kalenderlauf gegeben scheinen, würde unsere Neumond- und Moadimfeier Gefahr laufen, das Gepräge jener freien Festsetzungen zwischen Gott und seinem Volke völlig zu verlieren und dem entstellenden Scheine eines gebundenen Naturkultus zu erliegen, wenn nicht eben unsere zweiten Feiertage die Erinnerung an das ursprüngliche קידוש עפי ראיה und die freie Feststellung durch unsere Gesamtheit festhalten würden. Stammen sie ja aus jenen besseren Zeiten, in welchen unsere Gesamtheit noch ihren Mittelpunkt und ihre Repräsentanz hatte, auf deren Bestimmung alle Fernen wegen Feststellung ihrer Feier ausblickend harren mussten und eben in jenem Hinblick sich als Glieder eines großen Ganzen und ihre Feier als freie Festsetzungen begreifen konnten, in welchen Gott und sein Volk sich zusammenfinden sollten. Die von den abzusendenden Boten nicht Erreichbaren feierten zweifelshalber zwei Tage, und wohl wussten die Männer unserer letzten Gesamtheitsrepräsentanz, was sie taten, die, indem sie subsidiarisch für die ganze Galutzukunft die Monatsanfänge und Moëdtage heiligend feststellten, dennoch gleichzeitig שלחו מתם, an die zwei Tage feiernde Gola die Weisung erteilten: הזהרו במנהוג אבתיכם בידיכם, behaltet den euch von den Vätern überkommenen Brauch der zweitägigen Feier sorgfältig fest; זמנין דגזרו המלכות גזרה ואתי לקלקולי, es kann durch den Druck der Zeiten die Gesetzeskunde, sowie die Kenntnis unserer Feststellung in Vergessenheit geraten, ihr würdet dann nach eigner Berechnung oder Wahrnehmung Neumonde und Festtage bestimmen und würdet nicht wissen, dass nicht astronomische Berechnung und Wahrnehmung, sondern die heiligende Festsetzung der jüdischen Gesamtheitsrepräsentanz die Neumonde und Festtage zu jüdischen Moadim mache. Es ist daher eine völlige Wahrheit, dass für Israel in der Zerstreuung erst die Feier des zweiten Tages dem ersten seinen geheiligten jüdischen Charakter sichert.

The same word also serves as a ruling concerning a person afflicted with a discharge from his sexual organ (זב). The Passover may be slaughtered on such a person's behalf. The same applies to a person who is in the process of undergoing ritual purification and only needs to await sunset on that day to have completed this process. In all these instances the deciding factor is whether the person in question will be legally entitled to partake of the Passover on the evening of the 15th of Nissan.

Nach allem obigen erhalten die Worte החדש הזה לכם ראש חדשים erst ihre eigentliche Bedeutung: "Diese Erneuung des Mondes soll euch ein Anfang von Erneuungen werden", d. h. die Wahrnehmung dieser Mondeslichterneuung soll euch veranlassen, euch mondähnliche Erneuungen zu stiften; eure Mondesperioden sollt ihr nach dieser Wahrnehmung bestimmen. Es heißt nicht החדש הזה ראש חדשים, sondern לכם וגו׳, es gilt nicht astronomische Monate, sondern unsere Monate zu bestimmen. Daher auch, wie schon ר׳ עובדי׳ im Kommentar zu הל׳ ק׳׳הח לרמב׳׳ם bemerkt, Neumonde und Festtage wohl חדשיכם und מועדיכם genannt werden, nie aber der feststehende siebente Tag שבתכם genannt wird. Es heißt darum auch nicht ראש החדשים, wie etwa sofort חדשי השנה, sondern ראש חדשים; denn es sind eben neue, jüdische Monate, die geschaffen wurden, während das Jahr, wie wir sehen werden, das alte blieb.

Both Mechilta and Pessachim 90 consider Numbers 9,6 in which Israelites are complaining about not being able to eat of the Passover in the desert due to their being ritually impure, as referring to people who would have completed their purification process by the evening of the 15th of Nissan. Why were these people prevented from eating the Passover then? The reason was that their ritual impurity was of the most severe kind, i.e. due to contact with the dead. According to one authority such impurity is still considered as sufficiently effective even if the party concerned has already undergone the final sprinkling of spring water. According to Rabbi Yossi we could conclude that even a person who was on the last day of purification after having been in contact with a corpse would qualify to join a household whose head had included him in the Passover guests at the time he slaughtered his animal. This is especially so if the person had already undergone immersion in a ritual bath.

Die jüdische Neumondsweihe ist somit eine Institution für die periodisch immer aufs neue anzustrebende geistige und sittliche Verjüngung Israels durch sein Wiederzusammenfinden mit seinem Gotte, wie daher die Weisen diesen ganzen Begriff in prägnanter Kürze in ihrer Erläuterung des החדש הזה לכם durch דוגמא שלכם, diese Mondeserneuung "ist euer Vorbild", wiedergeben, und ja die Bedeutung des ראש חדש, die ja lediglich in dem קרבן מוסף ihren Ausdruck findet, wesentlich sich in das durch שעיר ר׳׳ח anzustrebende Ziel konzentriert: לכפר על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו שאין בה ידיעה לא בתחלה ולא בסוף, d.h. jener unserer Entfremdung allem Heiligen gegenüber entgegenzuwirken, in die wir unbewusst geraten und die uns selber gar nicht zum Bewusstsein kommt. Ohne dieses unser lebenlang immer aufs neue Wiederzusammenfinden mit Gott, ohne diese unser lebenlang immer aufs neue Wiederbestrahlung durch das Licht und die Wärme seines Geistes würden wir auf unserm Lebenswege uns immer mehr von ihm entfernen, würde, uns unbewusst, unser Wesen immer unempfänglicher für das Licht seines Geistes, würde unser Wesen immer dunkler und dunkler werden, bis — Pharao gleich — unser Herz so חזק und כבד würde, dass selbst den überraschendsten אותות und den empfindlichsten מופתים die verjüngende Wiedergeburt unseres Wesens nicht gelänge.

Es ist aber mit dem jüdischen Begriff der כפרה nicht nur die geistige und sittliche Wiedergeburt unseres Innern, sondern eben damit auch eine Neugestaltung unserer äußeren, sozialen und geschichtlichen Beziehungen verbunden. Die innere Wiedergeburt muss vorangehen, die äußere ist die Folge, beide ruhen in einer Hand, in der Hand unseres Gottes und in dem freien Wiederzusammenfinden mit ihm ist uns beides zugesichert.

So verkündet חדש die Erlösung von der Sünde und vom Übel, und darum steht diese Institution an dem Eingang unseres nationalen Aufbaues. Die Wahrheit, die sie lehrt, bildet den Grundstein unseres jüdischen Bewusstseins, das sich eben damit am schroffsten von allem Heidnischen scheidet. Das Heidnische kennt kein חידוש, nicht in der Welt, nicht im Menschen, nicht in seinem Gott oder seinen Göttern, die es über Welt und Menschen stellt. Alles ist ihm mit eiserner Notwendigkeit gegeben. Alles heute entwickelt sich bei ihm aus dem Gestern und alles Morgen mit eiserner Notwendigkeit aus dem Heute. Wie es das יש מאין, die freie Schöpfung aus dem freien Willen eines Schöpfers leugnet, so gibt es ihm auch kein יש מאין in dem sittlichen Wesen des Menschen, kein יש מאין in dem Geschicke des Menschen. Schuld und Übel müssen fort und fort nur Schuld und Übel erzeugen. Nichts göttlich Freies wohnt ihm in der Brust des Menschen, kein freier Gott waltet ihm in und über der Welt, alles zieht in dem blinden Strom unabänderlicher Notwendigkeit dahin, alle Freiheit ist nur Schein, alles Neue nur das im Alten Gegebene!

Darum בארץ מצרים, in dem Lande der heidnischsten Konsequenz, in dem Lande, in welchem diese heidnische Erstarrung selbst bis in das System des sozialen Staatenbaues hinüberreichte und die Kastenfessel schuf, in Ägypten, rief Gott die künftigen Führer seines Volkes hinaus und wies ihnen die aus Dunkel zu neuem Lichte sich ringende Mondessichel und sprach: das sei euer Vorbild! Wie es gebunden sich verjüngt, so sollt ihr euch freie Verjüngungen schaffen. So oft es erscheint, soll es euch an eure freie Verjüngung mahnen, und indem ich euch und ihr euch verjünget, sollt ihr als Mond durch den Nachthimmel der Völker ziehen und überall hin die Lehre vom חידוש, die Lehre vom frei schaffenden und frei machenden Gott, die Lehre von dem durch diesen Gott sittlich und geschicklich frei werdenden Menschen verkünden. Es ist. aber dieses חידוש nichts anders als das unmittelbare Korrelat des Namens ה׳, des "jeden kommenden Moment frei gestaltenden Gottes", unter welchem der Jude seinen Gott still im Busen verehrt. —

ראשון הוא לכם לחדשי השנה. Es ist dies ein zweites Gebot: die Reihenfolge der Monate mit Nissan zu beginnen. שנה: Jahr, von שנה: wiederholen, ein solcher Kreis von Tagen, nach welchem derselbe Erdentag wiederkehrt, d. h. nach welchem die Erde wieder sich in derselben Himmelsstellung und dadurch auch der ganze jahreszeitliche Charakter der Erde sich wieder findet. Mit Ablauf eines Monats kehrt nur dieselbe Mondeserscheinung wieder, allein der ganze übrige Charakter des Tages ist in jedem folgenden Monat ein durchaus von dem vorhergehenden verschiedener. Es heißt hier nicht חדשי שנה, wie oben ראש חדשים, sondern חדשי השנה, nicht Monate eines Jahres, sondern Monate des Jahres. Es ist somit schon hierdurch gegeben, dass das alte Weltjahr geblieben, innerhalb desselben jedoch ein neuer jüdischer Monatszyklus beginnen sollte. In der Tat erhielten wir damit einen doppelten Zeitzyklus. Ein Weltjahr, das mit Tischri, dem nunmehrigen siebenten Monat beginnt, und ein jüdisches Jahr, das mit dem Nissan, dem nunmehrigen ersten Monat, dem Monat der Erlösung aus Mizrajim beginnt. Dass, obgleich wir die Reihe unserer Monate mit Nissan beginnen, dennoch das Jahr mit Tischri beginnt und schließt, lehrt uns schon der Ausdruck: חג האסיף בצאת השנה (das Fest des Einsammelns im Ausgang des Jahres" (Schmot 23, 16"; חג האסיף תקופת השנה "das Fest des Einsammelns um die Jahreswende (das. 34, 22). Wir haben somit zwei Jahresanfänge, wie wir auch zwei Tagesanfänge kennen. Wir haben ein Jahr, das mit dem Herbste beginnt, und wenn es auch Frühling und Sommer kennt, doch wieder mit dem Herbste endet; und haben ein Jahr, das mit dem Frühling beginnt, und wenn es auch Herbst und Winter kennt, doch immer wieder mit dem Frühling endet. Und so haben wir auch einen Tag, der mit dem Abend beginnt, und wenn er zu Morgen und Mittag steigt, doch wieder mit dem Abend endet; und haben einen Tag, der mit dem Morgen beginnt, und wenn er auch in Abend und Nacht versinkt, doch wieder mit dem Morgen endet. Außer dem Heiligtum beginnt und schließt der Tag mit Abend, im Heiligtum beginnt und schließt der Tag mit Morgen. Die Jahre der Erde, ihrer Produkte, sowie des Verkehrs mit allen Gütern der Erde — לשנים ,לשמיטין ,ליובלות ,לנטיעה ,לירקות ,למעשר בהמה — zählen sich von Herbst zu Herbst. Israels Jahre, die Jahre seiner Feste und Fürsten, zählen von Frühling zu Frühling. Da haben wir die Mahnung an unsere Doppelnatur in das Wanderbuch unseres Lebens hineingeschrieben: Alles Irdische wird aus Nacht und blütenlos geboren, und ob es auch zum Glanz des Mittags blühend und fruchtreich steigt, es findet blütenlos in Nacht sein Grab. Alles Heilige und Jüdische stammt aus Licht und Leben, und ob es auch in seiner Laufbahn Mitte mit Nacht und Tod zu kämpfen hat, aus Nacht und Tod ringt es sich doch wieder zu Licht und Leben und das aus Morgen und Frühling Geborene endet im Morgen zum Frühling verjüngt. —

תמים PERFECT i. e. without blemish (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:5:1).

ומן העזים תקחו, "or you may take it from amongst the he-goats." The reason the Torah had to write the word תקחו, you shall purchase or take once more is to teach that it is permitted to use a goat even if one owns a sheep of the appropriate age group.

שה תמים, ”an unblemished lamb.” It was appropriate to select a lamb for that sacrifice as the horoscope of the lamb is in its ascendancy during the month of “Nissan.” Consuming the lamb was a reminder to every Israelite that this Egyptian deity had been completely powerless to protect its worshippers. By doing this we testify that our departure from Egypt was not due to our own efforts or ability, but exclusively to the power of Hashem.

Its entire [first] year it is called. . . This excludes an animal after one year of its life has passed. Although it has not yet lived two full years, it is unfit for the korbon Pesach. So says Rashi in Maseches Pesachim (97b), that a male in its second year is unfit for the korbon Pesach. (Nachalas Yaakov, see further proofs there)

שה תמים, “a lamb without blemish;” a Jew could not take an animal that was not in perfect physical condition and be considered as having fulfilled his duty. He might have been tempted to do so in order to escape the wrath of the Egyptian from whom he had purchased it by saying that he had not taken an Egyptian deity, since surely the Egyptians do not worship blemished animals, nor female animals or overage, weak animals, so that he had not committed blasphemy in their eyes. The Torah spells all this out by writing: “unblemished, male, less than a year old.” The Egyptians would raise the price of these animals when aware that the Israelites would use it in the service of their G-d. The Torah wanted the Jews to pay the price of such animals, although at that stage, they could have simply taken the animal without paying for it, as they no longer were afraid of their former masters. These had realised that they were not able to save their animals from the Israelites as long as these were still in their city. If they could not save their animals from the Israelites while in their own cities, how much less would they be able to do so outside their own domains.

בן שנה OF THE FIRST YEAR — the whole of its first year it is termed שנה בן, as much as to say, that it was born during this year (it does not mean that it is one year old — in its second year) (cf.Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:5:2).

Either one or the other. . . [Rashi is explaining that the beginning of our verse, where it says שה , means also either one or the other] — as it is written (Devarim 14:4), ושה עזים . And if you suggest that [the end of our verse is to be understood literally], “One from the sheep and one from the goats,” then the [beginning of our] verse should have said שיים (plural form), as a goat is also called שה . Perforce our verse means, “Either one or the other.”

בן שנה, “within the first year of its life.” We have proof that this is the meaning of the expression: בן שנה, from when the princes offered their offerings during the consecration rites of the Tabernacle in Numbers 7,15 and elsewhere, as the Torah there describes each of these lambs as בן שנתו, “during the first year of its life.” At the end the Torah repeats that they offered 12 lambs each “in the first year of its life,” i.e. בני שנה.

מן הכבשים ומן העזים — i. e. either from these (a lamb) or from these (a goat) (i. e. the ו of ומן does not signify “and”, but “or”); for a goat, also, is called שה, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 14:4) “the שה of the goats” (שה means the young animal, either of the sheep or of the goats) (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:5:1).

...Exodus 12:16: We say in our prayers: "from His place He will turn to us in mercy." There's a higher world called "Hoo," which lacks angels and seraphs [a different type of angel], which has only G-d [since this world is on such a high spiritual plane]. That's the meaning of the verse, "eaten by every soul," [this is like when a person] doesn't want to enjoy any worldly pleasure and [focuses on] giving life to his soul. This is like Hillel the Elder, who would do "kindness to his shameful body" by eating; [he was] only eating [for the sake of his soul]. All the needs of a person of such caliber are taken care of by Hashem. As it says, "He will do for you"-- He will take care of all your needs. The sages add that it's "for you only," and not for the wicked. This divine flow comes down from the world of Hoo, which can't be attacked by kelipa [demonic forces] to derive energy. Similarly, Yitzhak says to Yaakov, "how did you find [the wild game] so quickly"? Yaakov responded with "Hashem your Gd brought it before me." The Midrash expounds: Hashem takes care of your sacrifices--how much more so of your food." Why? Because the food of a tzaddik is more important than a sacrifice.

והיה לכם למשמרת AND IT SHALL BE IN YOUR KEEPING (or watching) — This expresses the idea of examining, and the text therefore implies that it requires examination against any blemish during the four days before slaughter (Pesachim 96a). And why did He order that it should be taken from the flock four days before its slaughter, something which He did not command in respect to the paschal-lamb that was offered by succeeding generations? Rabbi Mathia, the son of Cheresh, said, in answer: Behold, it (Scripture) says, (Ezekiel 16:8) “And I passed over thee (an allusion to God’s passing over the Israelites in Egypt) and looked upon thee, and behold, thy time was the time of love” — there had arrived the time to fulfil the oath which I had sworn to Abraham to redeem his children. They, however, possessed no divine commands in which to engage in order that they should merit to be redeemed — as it is said (Ezekiel 16:7) “thou wast naked and bare” (i. e. bare of all merit earned through the fulfilment of God’s commands). He therefore gave them two commands, relating respectively to the blood of the paschal-lamb and the blood of the circumcision — for that night they circumcised themselves, as it is said (Ezekiel 16:6) “[When I passed over thee] I saw thee wallowing in thy bloods (בְּדָמַיִךְ is plural)” i. e. in two kinds of blood. Further it states, (Zechariah 9:11) “As for thee, also, because of the blood of the covenant I released thy prisoners out of the pit wherin there is no water”. And yet another reply to this question is, that because they were sunk in idolatry and had no merit gained by the practice of a divine command, He said unto them, (v. 21) משכו “Draw” — withdraw your hands from idols; וקחו לכם צאן “and take unto yourselves a lamb” to fulfil a divine command (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:2:1).

BEIN HA’ARBAYIM’ (AT EVENTIDE). “The period beginning at the sixth hour and onward, [counted from the beginning of the day, which in Torah-law is always divided into twelve hours], is called bein ha’arbayim (at eventide), because the sun inclines in the direction of its setting there to become darkened. It appears to me that the expression bein ha’arbayim denotes those hours which are between the beginning of the darkening of the day and the final darkening at night. The darkening of the day is at the beginning of the seventh hour of the day, from the time the shadows of the evening are stretched out,¹²⁰Jeremiah 6:4. and the darkening of the night is at the beginning of the night. The word erev (night) is an expression of gloom and darkness, just as in the verse, All joy is ‘arbah’ (darkened).”¹²¹Isaiah 24:11. Thus the language of Rashi.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra refuted [this explanation of Rashi] by pointing to the verse which says, And when Aaron lighteth the lamps ‘bein ha’arbayim’¹²²Further, 30:8. [‘There is no doubt that he lights the lamps at sundown”], as it is written there, Aaron and his sons shall set it in order from evening to morning.¹²³Ibid., 27:21. [Thus it proves that bein ha’arbayim does not begin with the seventh hour of the day as Rashi would have it, but at sundown near night.] Besides, the verse regarding the paschal offering itself states: There thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering at even, at the going down of the sun, at the time thou camest forth out of Egypt,¹²⁴Deuteronomy 16:6. and “the going down of the sun” occurs at sunset. [How then could Rashi explain bein ha’arbayim mentioned here as commencing at the seventh hour of the day?]
But this is no refutation of the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s] explanation. Our Rabbis have already said¹²⁵Berachoth 9a. that the meaning of the verse is as follows: “At even, you slaughter [the Passover-offering]; at the going down of the sun, you eat it; at the time thou camest forth out of Egypt, [i.e., in the morning of the fifteenth day of Nisan, it becomes nothar]¹²⁶Literally, “left over.” Portions of sacrifices left over after the prescribed time within which they are to be eaten must be burnt. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 103-4. Now since the Passover-offering is to be eaten only on the night of the fifteenth day, whatever is left by the morning of that day is to be burnt. The actual burning, however, takes place on the morning of the sixteenth day, since it is not permissible to burn nothar on a Festival day. and you burn it.” The Rabbi [Rashi] has already so commented [in his commentary to Deuteronomy 16:6].
The correct interpretation on this matter appears to me to be that the night is called erev, as it is said, ‘ba’erev’ ye shall eat unleavened bread.¹²⁷Further, Verse 18. and this is at night, as it clearly states, And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread.¹²⁸Ibid., Verse 8. Similarly, And there was ‘erev’ and there was morning,¹²⁹Genesis 1:5. means the beginning of night when the stars do come forth. The same applies to the verse, In the twilight, ‘ba’erev’ of the day, in the blackness of night and the darkness,¹³⁰Proverbs 7:9. [where the word ba’erev, coming after “the twilight,” must signify the night]. Now the end of the day is also called erev, as the verses indicate: And the two angels came to Sodom ‘ba’erev,’ and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom;¹³¹Genesis 19:1. In view of the fact that Lot surely did not sit in the gate at night, ba’erev must mean at the end of the day. And it came to pass ‘ba’erev’ that the quails came up,¹³²Further, 16:13. and the quails did not come at night.¹³³Ibid., Verse 12: At eventide ye shall eat flesh. This clearly indicates that the quails came before the night. The word ba’erev in the verse, And it came to pass ‘ba’erev’ that the quails came up, must therefore mean at the end of the day. There are many other such cases.
It is further written: ‘Erev,’ and morning, and at noonday, I will sigh and moan.¹³⁴Psalms 55:18. Now these three periods include the whole day [of twenty-four hours. Therefore, if we interpret erev as meaning actual night, the hours from noonday to night will be missing here. We must] thus conclude that [the period] immediately after noonday is called erev, [which lasts from the latter part of the day till morning. Thus the verse encompasses the whole day of twenty-four hours].
Morning is so called from sunrise and thence onward as long as the sun remains in the east. This period lasts four hours, just as the Rabbis testified¹³⁵In Tractate Eduyoth 6:1. This testimony is attributed to Rabbi Yehudah ben Baba. that the morning Daily Whole-offering [for the entire congregation of Israel] may be offered in the [first] four hours of the day [but not later].
After morning, the time is called tzohorayim (noonday), just as it is said, from morning until ‘tzohorayim’ (noon).¹³⁶I Kings 18:26. It consists of two hours: the fifth and the sixth hours of the day. The word tzohorayim is of the root ‘tzohar’ (A light) shalt thou make to the ark,¹³⁷Genesis 6:16. and implies brightness. It is written in the plural [tzohorayim] because it is the two [brightest parts of the day] which, so to speak, make two tzohorayim. It may be that it is written in the plural because light is then disseminated on all sides. In the morning the light is centered in the east, and towards evening it is in the west, but in the middle of the day when it is high in the sky, it gives light on all sides.
When tzohorayim (noonday) passes and the sun departs from shining upon two sides, the time of the day is called arbayim — [from the root erev (darkness)] - because the sun has darkened from [its state of shining on] those two sides. This period [of arbayim] lasts as long as the sun shines in the sky [and is permissible for the slaughtering of the Passover-offering]. But beginning with sundown, which is about an hour and a quarter [before the day terminates with the coming out of the stars], it is no longer the time for the slaughtering thereof according to the opinion of our Rabbis,¹³⁸Mechilta Pischa, 5: “At eventide. I might understand this to mean at the evening twilight. Scripture therefore says, etc.” for that period of time is no longer arbayim but rather erev yom (the evening of the day).¹³⁹In the twilight, ‘b’erev yom’ (in the evening of the day) (Proverbs 7:9).
The reason it is called bein ha’arbayim [in the Torah, and not just arbayim], is not that the word bein signifies here “between,” [as Rashi above explained that the expression bein ha’arbayim denotes that time-period which is “between” the beginning of those hours, etc.], but it is something like “in their midst,” similar to these verses: Let there now be an oath ‘beinotheinu beineinu ubeinecha';¹⁴⁰Genesis 26:28. It is generally translated: between us, even between us and thee. But according to Ramban, the meaning thereof would be: “let there be an oath in our midst, even in us and in thee.” A piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is that ‘beini ubeincha’?;¹⁴¹Ibid., 23:15. It is generally translated: between me and thee. Ramban understands it: “in the midst of me and you, the value of the land is not worth discussing.” And her stature was exalted ‘al bein’ (among) the thick branches;¹⁴²Ezekiel 19:11. Ramban would explain it: “her stature was exalted in the midst of the thick foliage.” Take fire ‘mibeinoth’ the wheelwork,¹⁴³Ibid., 10:6. It is generally translated: “from ‘between’ the wheelwork.” which means from “within their midst”; Take up their fire-pans ‘mibein’ the burning,¹⁴⁴Numbers 17:2. which means “from the midst thereof,” similar to the expression, She rises also ‘be’od’ night,¹⁴⁵Proverbs 31:15. It is generally translated: “she rises also ‘while it is yet’ night.” which means in the midst of the night. And so is the expression bein ha’arbayim, [which signifies “in the midst of that part of the day called arbayim,” as explained above]. It does not state ba’arbayim, for that might have indicated the erev of many days. Thus Scripture is saying that we should slaughter the Passover-offering in the midst of the arbayim, since the time prescribed by the Torah for the slaughtering of the Passover-offering is from after the sixth hour of the day till the commencement of sunset. And Scripture also says, In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month ‘bein ha’arbayim’ (at eventide) is the Passover of the Eternal,¹⁴⁶Leviticus 23:5. which refers to the time of the slaughtering [of the Passover-offering]. Similarly, the verse, In the fourteenth day of this month ‘bein ha’arbayim’ ye shall observe it,¹⁴⁷Numbers 9:3. refers to the beginning of the observance, which is the slaughtering, [while the eating of the Passover-offering takes place on the following night]. The verse stating [in connection with the quails], ‘bein ha’arbayim’ ye shall eat flesh,¹⁴⁸Further, 16:12. also refers to the hours mentioned, [i.e., from after the sixth hour of the day till the start of sunset], since they had extensive time for the eating of meat. The following verse there which states, And it came to pass ‘ba’erev’ (at even), that the quails came up,¹⁴⁹Ibid., Verse 13. is [so stated] because on the first day, the quails came up for one hour within that period called erev.¹⁵⁰In other words, Scripture is stating that during the part of the day called erev which, as explained above, extends from immediately after tzohorayim until the end of the day — making a period of six hours — the quails came up for a time. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 327, for further discussion of this text. [Therefore it does not say, “and it came to pass bein ha’arbayim that the quails came up,” for that would have signified that the quails came up during the whole stretch of time from after the sixth hour of the day till sundown.]
It is possible to explain the expression bein ha’arbayim in accordance with the explanation of Rashi,¹⁵¹The plural form of arbayim suggests two kinds of erev, and the word bein signifies “between.” Thus bein ha’arbayim denotes those hours which are between the darkening of the day and the darkening of the night. Thus is the explanation of Rashi. Ramban proceeds to confirm Rashi’s explanation that the word bein means “between,” but adds that the plural form of arbayim denotes two different periods of the day, unlike Rashi who wrote that it is between the darkening of the day and the darkening of the night, as will be explained. i.e., that there are two kinds of erev, an erev of the morning and an erev of the day, for Scripture so calls them: the ‘minchah’ of the morning,¹⁵²Further, 29:41. Ramban will explain the word minchah. and the ‘minchah’ of the evening,¹⁵³II Kings 16:15. as it is said, And it came to pass in the morning, about the time of making the ‘minchah’,¹⁵⁴Ibid., 3:20. and it further says, And I sat appalled until the ‘minchah’ of the evening. And at the evening ‘minchah’ I arose up from my fasting.¹⁵⁵Ezra 9:4-5. Now the word minchah is an expression denoting the resting of the sun and the diminution of its great light, just as the Targum rendered [l’ruach hayom] l’manach yoma (where the day comes to rest).¹⁵⁶In Genesis 3:8, we read: And they [Adam and Eve] heard the voice of the Eternal G-d walking in the garden of Eden ‘l’ruach hayom,’ which Rashi interpreted: “in that direction towards which the sun travels, which is the west.” Onkelos rendered it: l’manach yoma, “in the afternoon,” or literally, “when the day comes to rest.” Thus it is seen that the word minchah denotes rest. And the plural form of arbayim connotes the two afternoons: “the greater afternoon,” [i.e., the time from six and a half hours after the beginning of the day], and “the smaller afternoon,” [i.e., from nine and a half hours after the start of the day until sunset], which the Sages have mentioned.¹⁵⁷Berachoth 26b. Now during this entire period [of bein ha’arbayim], it is permissible to kindle the lamps of the candelabrum [in the Sanctuary]¹⁵⁸Unlike the opinion of Ibn Ezra mentioned above, i.e., that the kindling of the lamps of the candelabrum in the Sanctuary was done at sundown. and to burn the incense, both of which are not permissible to be done at night but only at the time of the Daily Whole-offering of the eventide, and in fact their performance precedes the actual offering of the sacrifice upon the altar.
Onkelos’ opinion seems to incline towards this explanation [that the plural form of arbayim denotes two different parts of the day], for he translated bein ha’arbayim as bein shimshaya (between the suns), meaning the times when the sun is in the east and the sun is in the west. The verse stating, Aaron and his sons shall set it in order from evening to morning,¹⁵⁹Further, 27:21. From this verse, Ibn Ezra had proven at the beginning of this discussion — see at Note 123 — that the lamps of the candelabrum are kindled at sundown. Ramban proceeds to explain that the purport of the verse is that the priests are to put into the lamps their due measure of oil so that they will burn from evening to morning, but not that it mattered that they were kindled only at sundown. As explained above, that could be done anytime during “the greater afternoon” and “the smaller afternoon.” Thus Ibn Ezra’s strictures on Rashi are removed. means [that it be given its due measure of oil] so that it may burn a whole night [although the actual kindling thereof could be done anytime in the bein ha’arbayim. It does not mean, as Ibn Ezra explained, that this verse teaches that the kindling of the candelabrum took place at sundown].
Thus we can explain the verse, There thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering ‘ba’erev’ (at even),¹⁶⁰Deuteronomy 16:6. See above at Note 124 how Ibn Ezra brought this verse in proof against Rashi’s explanation. Ramban already refuted it above on the basis of the teaching of the Rabbis. Here he refutes Ibn Ezra on the basis of the plain meaning of what he has shown, i.e., that erev also means the afternoon, etc. Ramban’s own explanation of this verse is yet to follow. to mean at the above-mentioned time, [i.e., the afternoon], for that is called erev [as explained]. The following expression there, at the going down of the sun, is connected with the following verse, And thou shalt roast and eat it.¹⁶¹Ibid., Verse 7. There are many such cases in Scripture [where an expression in one verse is connected with the following verse].¹⁶²See Vol. I, pp. 437-8.
In my opinion however, the verse, There thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering, does not at all refer to the time of the slaughtering thereof, [which took place on the afternoon of the fourteenth day of Nisan]. Rather, the purport thereof is to state that at the place which the Eternal thy G-d chose to establish His name in, there thou shalt observe [the commandment concerning] the Passover-offering at night, at the going down of the sun, which is the time thou camest forth out of Egypt. It is concerning this performance that Scripture says [in the following verse], And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place¹⁶¹Ibid., Verse 7. mentioned. The sacrifice itself is called zevach,¹⁶³Ramban’s intent is to clarify that the word tizbach — There thou shalt ‘tizbach’ the Passover-offering — does not mean “slaughter,” in which case it would necessarily be referring to the afternoon of the fourteenth day of Nisan. Instead, Ramban proceeds to show that the word zevach refers to the sacrifice itself, and the verse therefore refers to the eating thereof which takes place on the following night of the fifteenth day. All this, however, is from the standpoint of the plain meaning of Scripture. Ramban has already noted that the Rabbis in the Talmud (see Note 125), as well as Rashi in his commentary to Deuteronomy 16:6, have explained tizbach as “slaughter.” as Scripture says, Thou shalt not offer the blood of ‘zivchi’ (My sacrifice) upon leaven,¹⁶⁴Further, 34:25. which means “My Passover-offering.”
This then is the purport of the whole chapter [in Deuteronomy]: Observe the month of Aviv, and observe the Passover unto the Eternal thy G-d; for in the month of Aviv the Eternal thy G-d brought thee forth out of Egypt by night, etc. Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it.¹⁶⁵Deuteronomy 16:1-3. Thus He mentioned the observance of the Passover-offering and the night, [clearly indicating that in those verses, He refers only to the time of the eating of the Passover-offering, which occurs on the night of the fifteenth day, and not to the slaughtering thereof which takes place in the afternoon of the fourteenth day]. Commanding how they are to eat it, He then mentioned that [we must eat no leavened bread] for seven days.¹⁶⁶Ibid., Verse 3. But in this entire chapter, there is not a single reference to the fourteenth day of Nisan on which the slaughtering of the Passover-offering takes place. Similarly He said there, Neither shall any of the flesh which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning,¹⁶⁷Ibid., Verse 4. Now the expression, the first day at even, [definitely] means the fifteenth day of Nisan, the first of the seven days mentioned,¹⁶⁶Ibid., Verse 3. since the fourteenth day is not mentioned here at all. So also, the verse stating, On the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread,¹⁶⁸Further, Verse 18. means the night of the fifteenth day. Thus the intent of the expression, which thou sacrificest the first day at even,¹⁶⁷Ibid., Verse 4. is that neither shall any of the flesh of the offering which you are eating on the night of the first day [of the seven-day festival] remain until the morning.

והיה לכם למשמרת, "And you will keep it under observation until the fourteenth, etc." This means that the lamb required special examination just as any animals designated to become sacrificial offerings. This begins as soon as one has designated what "name" i.e. the specific offering the animal is to serve as. According to an opinion in Shir Hashirim Rabbah on the verse "like a lily amongst the thorns" this is a reference to the phenomenon that G'd had to liberate the Jewish people as גוי מקרב גוי, "one nation immersed within another nation" (Deut.4,34), the reason the Israelites had to set aside the lamb four days prior to being able to slaughter it was because it took that length of time to divest themselves of the remnants of their pagan practices. All of this is hinted at in the word משכו in verse 21. When the Midrash speaks about the Israelites having to divest themselves of vestiges of idol worship this is not to be understood as their being idol worshippers. However, they still used to wear clothing which the pagans wore, ate foods that the pagans ate, etc. The fastest and most effective way of countering the psychological impact of their former practices was to set aside the Egyptian deity in the knowledge that they would slaughter it in a few days' time. Inasmuch as the Egyptians believed in astrology, the constellation of the ram represented a handicap Israel had to overcome. Slaughtering a ram was the most effective way of doing this.

בין הערבים, “in the afternoon.” According to Rashi, this means any time from noon on, as this is called בין הערבים. Ibn Ezra disagrees, citing as his reason that when it come to lighting the Menorah in the Temple, the Torah describes that time as בין הערבים in Exodus 30,8 and this refers to a period close to sunset, as we know from the Torah’s own elaboration with the words יערוך אותו מערב עד בקר, Exodus 27,21, “that the time for the Menorah to be arranged to burn is from evening to morning.” Nachmanides writes that he believes that the night is referred to as ערב, seeing that the Torah has commanded us to eat the matzoh on the night of the 14th to the 15th of Nissan with the words בערב תאכלו מצה, seeing that the matzah had to be eaten with the meat of the Passover and the Passover is described as being eaten during the לילה, “night, roasted on the fire etc.” (12,8). He agrees that the end of the day is also called ערב, even if it is clearly still daylight, as we know from Genesis 19,1 ויבואו שני המלכים סדומה בערב ולוט יושב בשער סדם, “The two angels arrived in Sodom in the evening, while Lot was still sitting holding court in the public square of Sodom.” [the evening being a time when they were still clearly visible. Ed.] Furthermore, we have a verse in Psalms 55,18 ערב ובקר וצהרים אשיחה ואהמה, “evening, morning and noon I complain and moan.” Clearly, the psalmist, by mentioning these three parts of the day, means to describe the entire day as being divided into three parts. It follows that any part of the day which follows noon and is not yet evening must be called בין הערבים, “afternoon.” The period following dawn while the sun is still in the east is called בקר, morning, comprising a total of six hours. The period known as צהרים, “noon” comprises 2 hours, i.e. one hour before astronomical noon and one hour after astronomical noon. The term צהרים is taken from the word צהר, a bright light, as we find it in the top of Noah’s ark (Genesis 6,15) “a window for light, צהר, you are to make in the ark.” These two hours are the brightest part of the day. As soon as the shadows lengthen after the sun has passed its zenith and the sun has left the eastern part of the sky, we come to the period known as בין הערבים. This period until nightfall is known as ערב. The real meaning of the term בין הערבים is not that it is something that separates two time periods from one another, but it is similar to the meaning in מבין השרפה, Numbers 17,2 where it describes Eleazar’s fire-pan being picked up right in the midst of the fire. Similarly,בין הערבים describes a time period within which slaughtering of the Passover lamb is to take place. This time frame is bounded at the beginning from immediately after noon and at the end immediately before sunset. This is also the meaning of בין הערבים תאכלו, in Exodus 19,12 where G’d tells the Israelites that they are to eat the quail during that time frame. Seeing that we have no reason to believe that the quail could not be eaten also later, and there is no restriction applicable to it such as when eating the meat of animals whose blood was sprinkled on the altar, Rashi’s interpretation that the plural mode of ערבים refers to two evenings is very plausible. He refers to the ערב בקר and the ערב יום, the end of the period known as morning and the end of the period known as day. The time in between is the time during which the Passover lamb is to be slaughtered. We find support for this interpretation by Rashi in Kings II 3,20 ויהי בבוקר כעלות המנחה, “and in the morning when it was time to present the meal offering, etc.” We also encounter the other time frame known as בין הערבים, as מנחת ערב, the meal offering of the evening, in Ezra 9,5 ובמנחת הערב קמתי, “at the time of the evening offering I concluded my fast, etc.” The term מנחה in both instances is not confined to the “meal offering,” but on the contrary, it is derived from the word מנוחה, i.e. when the sun prepares to take a rest from its daily activity in the sky. This meaning is reflected in the translation of Onkelos on the word ערב in Genesis Similarly, this is the time frame allocated to lighting the menorah and the offering of the second part of the daily incense offering, (in conjunction with the daily burnt offering) which are also described as בין הערבים in Exodus 30,8 and 29,39 respectively. We can explain the words:שם תזבח את הפסח בערב, (instead of בין הערבים) in Deuteronomy 16,6 as referring to a period previously described as ערב in conjunction with the setting of the sun. Onkelos understands the term בין הערבים as בין שמשיא, “between the sun in the east and the sun in the west,” as in ויהי כבא השמש בערב, “it was when the sun was about to set, in the evening, etc.” Deuteronomy 16,6 clearly defines ערב as the period when the sun sets: שם תזבח את הפסח בבוא השמש, normally translated as “there you will slaughter the Passover, in the evening, when the sun sets.” This translation would clearly conflict with what the Torah has written here. Therefore, in my opinion, the word תזבח in that verse does not refer to the slaughtering but to the whole procedure of offering and consuming the Passover which reflects the preparation the Israelites had made on that date for an immediate departure from Egypt. The verse in Deuteronomy therefore concludes withמועד צאתך ממצרים, “the appointed time at which you departed from Egypt.” After all, the Torah had referred elsewhere to the fact that G’d had taken the Israelites out from Egypt at night,כי.... הוציאך ה' אלוקיך ממצרים לילה. (Deut. 16,1) We must not forget that the actual Passover sacrifice was called by the Torah זבח פסח, so that there is nothing strange in the word תזבח not meaning: ”you will slaughter,” in the verse quoted. Similarly, it appears that we can also understand Deut 16,4 ולא ילין מן הבשר אשר תזבח בערב ביום הראשון לבוקר, as referring to the sacrifice you have performed on the evening of the first day (of the Passover). There is no need to translate the word תזבח as “you slaughter.” The verse tells us that the sacrificial meat of last night’s זבח, also known as the Passover, must not be allowed to be left over uneaten until daybreak.

Why was it necessary to acquire it four days before its slaughter. . . Why did Rashi not ask this question on (v. 3), “On the tenth of this ( הזה ) month they shall take. . .”? It seems that the answer is: There we would have assumed that the four days [before its slaughter] are to examine the animal against blemishes, a law that applies also to the korbon Pesach of later generations. For הזה excludes only the Pesach sheini sacrifice from the four days of examination. But now that it is written here, “You shall hold it in safekeeping,” which implies examining, we know that “they shall take” (v. 3) means actually acquiring the animal [as a korbon Pesach]. If so, the question arises: Why did it have to be acquired as a korbon Pesach four days before its slaughter, when the korbon Pesach of later generations may be acquired at any time [prior to its slaughter]? But we could challenge this explanation: How does the statement of R. Masia b. Cheresh answer the question? [Acquiring the animal is a one-time act, not a mitzvah “with which to be occupied” for four days.] Furthermore, why is the mitzvah done four days before its slaughter — no less and no more? This matter requires further investigation.

והיה לכם למשמרת, “this lamb shall be carefully watched over by you (for possible blemishes). According to Rashi, G-d commanded the Israelites two commandments prior to their qualifying for redemption. They had to slaughter (release blood and put it on their door posts, and they had to give up some blood of their own bodies by circumcising themselves). This is referred to in Ezekiel 16,6 when the prophet refers to their having remained alive due to these categories of blood. Yonatan ben Uzziel translates that line in Ezekiel as: “by means of the blood of circumcision and the blood of the Passover sacrifice I will redeem you.”

ושחטו אתו וגו׳ AND THEY SHALL SLAUGHTER IT etc. — But did they all slaughter it (one alone did this on behalf of the company formed to eat that particular lamb; cf. Chullin 29b)? But we derive from this statement the legal principle that a man’s agent is as himself (this is derived from the fact that although one alone slaughtered the lamb on behalf of many, Scripture still states: they shall slaughter it) (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:6:2; Kiddushin 41b).

And because they were immersed in idol worship. . . Here, Rashi is offering an additional reason: “And because they were. . .”

והיה לכם למשמרת עד ארבעה עשר יום, “you are to keep it under close observation until the fourteenth day.” According to the view that examining for a blemish in the eye requires thirty days, that scholar may refer only to temporary blemishes which are apt to heal; here the examination is to determine if there is a visible blemish of any kind. A different interpretation: if the animal was purchased from a gentile the examination period is thirty days. Here where the Israelites already had animals in reserve in anticipation of going into the desert to offer sacrifices, at least cursory examinations had already been made prior to the commandment. Therefore an additional four days was adequate.

קהל עדת ישראל it speaks here of קהל assembly, עדה congregation, ישראל Israel, whilst one of these terms alone would have sufficed; hence they (the Rabbis) said: the paschal-lambs of the congregation (a term used in contrast to that which was sacrificed by an individual on the 14th of the second month; cf. Numbers 9:9—14) are to be slaughtered in three groups, one after the other — the first group entered and the doors of the court were closed, etc. as is to be found in the Talmud, Treatise Pesachim (64a).

From here we derive that “the agent of a person is as himself.” You might ask: Why was this not derived from (v. 3), “Each man [shall take] a lamb for [his] family,” where one man takes a lamb for the entire family? Furthermore, perhaps the case in our verse is different [from most cases where “the agent of a person is as himself”] since in our case both the person and the agent are partners in the animal? The answer is: The rule is derived from both verses together. One verse tells us the rule where there is a partnership. And since the rule is repeated in the second verse, this tells us to apply it even where there is no partnership. So it is explained in Maseches Kiddushin 42a. (Re”m) Nachalas Yaakov disagrees, and concludes: It seems to me that [the rule is derived as follows:] It should have said, “They shall slaughter them,” implying that many people shall slaughter many Pesach sacrifices. Or it could have said, “He shall slaughter it.” However when it is written, “They shall slaughter it,” the question arises: “But did they all slaughter it? From here we derive. . .”

עד ארבעה עשר יום, “in order to annoy the Egyptians who had to sit by unable to interfere while the Israelites prepared to kill their deities.” These animals were kept tied up where everyone could see them for four days. They would hear the animals bleat and were powerless to do anything about it. If we needed proof for this assumption it is found in the words: לחודש הזה “(only) during this month.” This means that this commandment was a commandment to be performed only once in Jewish history, [as we are a people that shuns cruelty to animals, so much so that we are commanded to unload the donkeys of even an enemy, if we see that it broke down under too heavy load. (Exodus 23,5) Ed.] What follows the words: לחודש הזה, “for this month,” are rules applicable only to the Passover prior to the Exodus.

בין הערבים AT EVENTIDE — The period beginning at six hours (reckoning from six o’clock in the morning) and hence forward is called בין הערבים (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:6:5), because the sun then inclines in the direction of the place of its setting to become darkened. The expression בין הערבים appears to me to denote those hours which are between the darkening of the day and the darkening of the night. The darkening of the day is at the beginning of the seventh hour in the day, from when the shadows of evening decline; and the darkening of the night is at the commencement of the night (this period is therefore from noon until the beginning of night). The word ערב is an expression for gloom and darkness, as in (Isaiah 24:11). “All joy is darkened".

ושחטו אותו, “they are to slaughter it.” It was to be slaughtered regardless of whether the fourteenth of the month of Nissan was a weekday or a Sabbath. [I fail to see the relevance in this verse of that rule, seeing that we speak only about the Passover offered in Egypt, not about subsequent Passovers. Discussion of future observances of the Passover does not start until verse 14. Ed.] The author raises the rhetorical question of how to make the words: “he who desecrates it (the Sabbath) shall be executed” (Exodus 31,14), as applying to additional ritual activities other than the actual slaughtering. The instruction of ושחטו אותו, which sounds as if the whole congregation was commanded to participate in the slaughtering, an obvious impossibility, was inserted only because Moses had told Pharaoh that if the Israelites were to offer sacrifices to their G-d inside Egypt the Egyptians would surely kill the people trying to do so. (8,2) In the event, they did slaughter the animals inside Egypt and were not stoned to death by the Egyptians. G-d had to give this specific instruction so that the Israelites would not be afraid to do so, quoting Moses’ own words.

ושחטו אותו, contrary to other “almost communal” offerings, this offering did not need to be accompanied by libations, and the owners did not have to perform the rite of s’michah, placing their weight with all their strength on the animal prior to its being slaughtered; neither did the slaughterer have to perform the heaving of the animal prior to its being slaughtered.

ושחטו אותו כל קהל עדת ישראל, “the entire congregation of the Jewish people shall slaughter it.” This commandment cannot be delegated to a fellow Jew to be performed on his behalf. They must all be partners (financially) in performing this commandment.

בין הערבים, “in the hours after the labourers have completed their daily chores.”

ולקחו מן הדם AND THEY SHALL TAKE OF THE BLOOD — This refers to the ritual reception of the blood. One might think that they must take it in the hand; therefore Scripture states, (v. 22) “[and ye shall dip it in the blood] which is in the basin (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:7:1).

המשקוף, the upper lintel which is visible to all when one enters though the door. The word appears in a context of viewing something in Genesis 26,8 וישקף אבימלך, when the King of the Philistines, acting like a peeping Tom, found out that Yitzchok and Rivkah were man and wife. Commentators who consider the word משקוף as relating to sounds made when the door hits the frame owe us other proof of such uses of the word in classical Hebrew texts. [a swipe at his grandfather Rashi. Ed.]

ולקחו מן הדם, “they are to take from its blood,” Nachmanides, in exploring the rationale of this legislation, writes that seeing the zodiac sign of the lamb is at the peak of its power during the month of Nissan as it is the sign symbolising growing vegetation, G’d ordered the lamb to be slaughtered during this month to demonstrate that this animal that they considered their symbol of success could not even protect itself, much less those who worshipped it. Moreover, the death of the lambs proved that the Exodus of the Jewish people did not occur thanks to the mazzal of the lamb (whom the Israelites had served also) but that it had been orchestrated by a higher power, by Hashem.

This refers to the mitzvah of “taking the blood.” [Rashi knows this because] it only needed to say, “and place (some of) its blood. . .” Why did it say also, “they shall take”? To teach us about קבלת הדם (taking the blood).

V. 7 u. 8. Jedes Aufgeben bisherigen und sonstigen Seins vor Gott, שחיטת ist aber nimmer eine Vernichtung, ist vielmehr immer nur unerlässliche Vorbedingung ,קרבן eines durch Gott zu gewinnenden höhern Seins. Das geschächtete Blut wird sofort für dies neue, höhere Sein in Empfang genommen: קבלה. Insbesondere dieses Peßachopfer wird von vornherein nur geschächtet, um von den Persönlichkeiten, die sich in ihm Gott dargestellt und aufgegeben haben, selbst wieder genossen zu werden. Bei keinem sonstigen Opfer ist die אכילה so wesentlich (siehe Peßachim 78 b.f.) nur vom Peßach heißt es: שלא בא מתחלתו אלא לאכילה (Peßachim 76 b.). Frei und selbständig werden, heißt es etwas anderes, als: sich selbst zum Genusse kommen? Seine ganze Persönlichkeit mit allen Organen und Fähigkeiten nur sich selbst zuwenden dürfen, ist das Wesen der Unabhängigkeit und Selbständigkeit, setzt das Ich in seinen persönlichen Wert und gibt ihm sein leibliches und geistiges Wesen als ihm allein zu Gebote stehende Domäne. Daher, so glauben wir, ist das Selbstessen des Peßachopfers, d. h. das Gegessenwerden desselben von denselben Persönlichkeiten, denen es angehört, die vor dessen Opferung als diejenigen bestimmt werden, die in ihm ihren Ausdruck, und in seiner Opferung sich auf- und hingeben sollen, eben bei diesem Opfer so wesentlich. Es ist eben der Ausdruck der durch die Hingebung an Gott zu gewinnenden freien Selbständigkeit, des Wiedergewinnens seiner selbst, das bisher sklavisch in die Person des Herrn auf- und verloren gegangen. Daher ist auch hier: שחיטה שלא למנוייו ושלא לאוכליו פסול. שלא למוייו wäre geradezu: Knechtung, Opferung ohne Wiedergewinnung selbständigen Seins.

ולקחו מן הדם ונתנו, “they are to take some of its blood and put it, etc;” not with the fingers but by means of some hyssop branches and leaves that have been dipped into it. Moses has elaborated on this procedure in verse 22. Whatever details have been omitted in this paragraph were added in the second paragraph.

המזוזת THE SIDE POSTS — These are the upright posts, one on this side of the entrance and one on that side.

I might think that it is taken by hand. . . Rashi means as follows: Since we learn קבלת הדם from “They shall take,” and it is not written into what to put the blood, therefore, “I might think that it is taken by hand. Therefore the Torah states, ‘Which is in the basin.’” (Nachalas Yaakov)

Nicht aber freie, selbständige Individuen, sondern, wie wir gesehen haben, durch Bande des Blutes oder freie Wahl sich bildende freie unabhängige Häuser sind die Elemente, aus welchen Gott sein Volk erbauen wollte; nur innerhalb der innern, freien Familie soll der einzelne zum Genusse seiner selbst erwachsen, das geopferte Blut wird daher aufgenommen und an die מזוזות und משקוף der Häuser gegeben, in welchen das geopferte Lamm wieder zum Genusse der Opfernden kommen soll, ja, wie es heißt: על שתי המזוזת ועל המשקוף על הבתים וגו׳, die מזוזות und משקוף selbst sind die Repräsentanten der Häuser. Dem Begriff des Hauses wohnen zwei Elemente inne: die soziale Abschließung des Raumes für die Bewohner der ganzen übrigen Menschengesellschaft gegenüber, und zweitens: die physische Abschließung gegen das Hereindringen der Welt der Elemente; jenes: die Mauern, dieses: das Dach. Das sozial abgrenzende Element repräsentieren die beiden Türpfosten: מזוזות, (von זיז, sich bewegen, das die ein- und ausgehende Bewegung Normierende), das physisch schützende repräsentiert die das Dach andeutende "von oben herabschauende" Oberschwelle: משקוף, (von שקף, von oben herabblicken). Der zum Menschen und Familienvater und -Sohn erstehende Sklave gewinnt מזוזת משקוף: Rechtssicherung und Schutz durch Gott gegen Eingriff der Menschen- und Naturgewalten, indem er sein Wesen, das innerhalb dieser Gottessicherung und dieses Gottesschutzes zum Selbstgenuss kommen soll, zuvor Gott, als seinem Hirten, alles bisherige und sonstige Sein aufgebend, zu Gebote stellt. Das spricht das Lammopferblut an den Türpfosten und der Dachschwelle der Häuser aus, in welchen das Lammopfer zum Genusse kommen soll. Nicht die Mauern schützen ihn gegen feindliche Menschengewalt, und nicht das Dach gegen feindliche Naturgewalt, Gott schützt in Mauern und unter Dach die, die sich ihm opfernd anheimgegeben.

על שתי המזוזות, “on the two upright posts,” on either side of the entrance;”

המשקוף THE LINTEL — This is the upper post upon which the door beats (שוקף) when it is being closed; old French lintel. The expression שקף (from which משקוף lintel is derived) denotes beating, as may be seen from the Targum on, (Leviticus 26:36) “the sound of a leaf that is beaten (by another)”, which Onkelos renders by דשקיף; and from the Targum on, (Exodus 21:25) חַבּוּרָה “wheal” (a beaten spot), where משקופי is the rendering.

In which people do not reside. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “In which they will eat.” And we cannot say that the verse means to place blood only on the houses in which they actually eat, but not on other houses, even if they are fit to live in. For it is written later (v. 13), “on the houses where you are [staying],” implying that blood should be put on all houses that are fit to live in, even if they do not eat there.

ואכלו את הבשר וגו׳. Ihnen selbst soll in dieser freimachenden Nacht ihr geopfertes Wesen wieder zugute kommen; jedoch: צלי אש ומצות וגו׳, jedoch nur unmittelbar auf Feuer gebraten und mit ungesäuertem Brote samt bitteren Kräutern sollen sie es genießen. Die Bedeutung von מצות und מרורים ist klar. Wie im Momente des Auszugs ihnen ihre Dränger nicht einmal Zeit zur Gärung ihres Brotes ließen und sie es daher ungesäuert als מצה mit hinausnehmen mussten, so ließen sie ihnen während des ganzen Sklavenzustandes nicht einmal Zeit zur Brotgärung, immer stand die Peitsche des Treibers und der atemlose Drang der überbürdenden Arbeit hinter ihnen und gönnte ihnen nur die raschste, eilfertigste Brotbereitung. מצה ist somit das eigentliche Sklavenbrot und bezeichnen wir es noch als das "Brot der Abhängigkeit, das unsere Väter in Ägypten aßen". Es ist somit entschieden der Ausdruck für עבדות. Dass מרורים dem וימררו את חייהם entspricht, somit Ausdruck des ענוי, der schikanösen Quälereien ist, womit sie ihr Leben verbitterten, ist ebenfalls ohne weiteres klar. Haben wir aber in מצה und מרור zwei der uns bekannten drei Seiten des ägyptischen Galut vor uns, so glauben wir nicht irre zu gehen, wenn wir in צלי אש das noch fehlende dritte Element, das גרות zu erblicken wagen. Ohne Unterlage, bodenlos, schwebend, nicht צלי קדר, sondern תלוי בשפור, wird das קרבן פסח zum Genusse reif. Ohne Unterlage, bodenlos schwebend, das ist ja buchstäblich der גרות-Zustand, in welchem die jetzt zur Freiheit und Selbständigkeit Erstehenden ihrem Ziele entgegenreiften. So sprachen in späterer Zeit, als das Exilverhängnis aufs neue über Juda schwebte, die dem Verhängnis Trotz bieten zu können Vermeinenden (Jechesk. 11), umgekehrt von Jerusalem: היא הסיר es ist der Topf und wir sind das Fleisch"; d. h. wir haben in Jerusalem" ,ואנחנו הבשר unsern natürlichen, bleibenden Boden, der uns nicht entzogen werden kann, und auf welchem wir unsere uns zukommende Vollendung erreichen. Und das Exil wird ihnen dort mit den Worten angekündigt: היא לא תהי׳ לכם לסיר. Demgemäß vergegenwärtigt צלי אש ומצות על מרורים im Momente des wiedererlangten Freiheitgenusses die drei hervorragenden Seiten גרות עבדות וענוי des ägyptischen Druckes, um das Bewusstsein wachzuhalten, dass in dem Augenblick der Erlösung noch der Druck in voller Schwere auf ihnen lastete, sie noch völlig die alten Sklaven in der Gewalt Ägyptens waren, und nur Gott ihnen die Freiheit zu gewähren vermochte und verlieh.

על המשקוף, “on the lintel;” the word משקוף is a derivative of וישקף “he looked down.” The lintel faces the empty space of the door and “looks” down into it. The reason for this was seeing that not all the Egyptians had become aware of what was going on, now that they saw these markings at the entrances to the homes of the Israelites they would realise how the Israelites had desecrated their sacred symbols. An alternate explanation: the blood on the entrances of the homes of the Israelites should form the equivalent of the letter ח, in order to protect the entrance so that the destructive force which would kill the firstborn inside would not carry out that command. The letter ח is reminiscent of Yitzchok blessing Esau with the words על חרבך תחיה, “you will live by your sword.” (Genesis 27,40). On the other hand, the letter ח could be a symbol of חיים, life. [It hardly pays to speculate. Ed.]

אל הבתים אשר יאכלו אתו בהם ON THE HOUSES WHEREIN THEY SHALL EAT IT — and not upon the lintel and the doorposts which are in the place used for storing straw or in the stalls of oxen, in which people do not live and eat. (Cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:7:2 and הגהות הגר״א thereon).

על הבתים, not “above” the houses but בבתים “attached to the houses.” The word על appears in that sense in על צבאותם, “with their respective armies,” or as in Genesis 27,40.

את הבשר AND THEY SHALL EAT] THE FLESH — but not the sinews and bones (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:8:1).

AND UNLEAVENED BREAD, ‘AL’ (WITH) BITTER HERBS THEY SHALL EAT IT. The purport of the verse is as follows: And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and with unleavened bread with bitter herbs, they shall eat it. [The word al here thus means “with,” and not “upon,” as it generally does.] Similarly: ‘al’ unleavened bread and bitter herbs¹⁶⁹Numbers 9:11. Mentioned in connection with the Second Passover-offering. means “with”; And they came both men ‘al’ women¹⁷⁰Further, 35:22. [means “with” the women]; its head ‘al’ its legs ‘v’al’ the inwards thereof¹⁷¹Verse 9. [means its head “with” its legs “and with” the inwards thereof]. Scripture does not say im (with) [but instead uses al] in order to instruct that it is not obligatory to wrap them together, [i.e., insert the paschal meat and the bitter herbs between the unleavened bread], and eat them.¹⁷²Hillel in fact did wrap them together and eat them. The Sages, however, differed with him and held it not to be obligatory to eat them in that way (Pesachim 115a). As is known, nowadays at the performance of the Seder on the night of Passover, the wrapping together of unleavened bread and bitter herbs is observed “according to the custom of Hillel.” Thus [the word umatzoth (and unleavened bread)] is missing the letter beth, [which would make it ubematzoth (and with unleavened bread)], similar to the expressions: they shall wash ‘mayim’ (water)¹⁷³Further, 30:20. [the word missing a beth, which would make it b’mayim, (with water)]; And Seled died ‘lo’ (no) children,¹⁷⁴I Chronicles 2:30. [the word lo missing a beth, which would make it b’lo (without) children]. Thus Scripture teaches that there is no commandment for eating the bitter herbs alone, but only with the eating of the flesh of the Passover-offering.¹⁷⁵Thus nowadways when we have no Passover-offering, we are not obligated by law of the Torah to eat bitter herbs. It is by law of the Rabbis that we are now obligated to eat bitter herbs at the Seder (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Chametz Umatzah, 7:12). Concerning unleavened bread, however, Scripture repeated it by commanding, At even ye shall eat unleavened bread,¹⁷⁶Verse 18. even by itself [when there is no Passover-offering], as is the opinion of our Rabbis.¹⁷⁷Pesachim 120a.
A more correct interpretation is that we say that the word, umatzoth (and unleavened bread), is connected with the earlier part of the verse: And they shall eat the flesh … and unleavened bread. The verse then continues to command that the flesh mentioned be eaten with bitter herbs. Thus He commanded the eating of the flesh with the eating of the unleavened bread, but He did not command the eating of bitter herbs, except by saying that they should eat the meat with bitter herbs, thus hinting that there is no [separate] commandment regarding the bitter herbs. It is only that the meat must be eaten with them, and when there is no Passover-offering there is no specific commandment [of the Torah] regarding the eating of the bitter herbs. It also teaches us that the bitter herbs do not invalidate the meat. Thus, if one ate the meat of the Passover-offering and did not eat bitter herbs, he has [nevertheless] fulfilled his duty of eating the Passover-offering, since the commandment concerning the eating of the Passover-offering is like the commandment of eating unleavened bread, each one an independent commandment in itself.¹⁷⁸For further discussion of this topic, see “The Commandments,” Soncino, Vol. I, pp. 65-67.

"And you shall eat the meat": The verse begins with eating and concludes with eating "with bitter herbs you should eat it", hinting that eating is necessary twice; eating the Pascal lamb and the eating of the Chagiga offering.

ואכלו את הבשר, "and they will eat the meat, etc." Pessachim 83 states that the emphasis here on the Israelites eating the "meat" means that they were not to eat the horns, the hooves, the sinews, etc. This exegesis is strange since we have a rule that the expression את always means that something is to be included not excluded and the Torah here wrote את הבשר! Perhaps the addition alluded to by the word את can be traced to the Mishnah Pessachim 7,11 that "the parts of the lamb that are permitted to be eaten are those which are analogous to the parts of the ox that are permitted to be eaten." Ravah explains Pessachim 84 that what is meant are parts of the animals which become soft as a result of boiling them in water.

'ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה צלי אש וגו, every reference to the eating of this meal reflects the haste with which it had to be consumed.

צלי אש ומצות על מרורים יאכלוהו, “roasted on the fire together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it.” The meaning of the word על in the phrase על מרורים, is “with,” just as in the construction ראשו על כרעיו ועל קרבו, “its head together with its legs and its innards.” The reason why the Torah employed the word על here in preference to the more common word עם for “with,” was to indicate that it is not mandatory to make a “sandwich” of all thee three ingredients and to eat them all simultaneously. As long as all three ingredients are eaten during the same meal that is satisfactory. The verse also teaches that the bitter herbs do not need to be eaten with the unleavened bread, as long as they are eaten in conjunction with the meat of the sacrifice. Concerning the eating of the unleavened bread the Torah repeats (verse 18) that it is to be eaten during the course of that evening, i.e. the repetition meaning that this is mandatory even if for one reason or another –such as the absence of the Temple- we cannot eat the Passover lamb. I believe it is more correct to explain the word ומצות in our verse as belonging to what has been written immediately prior to it, i.e. ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה צלי אש ומצות, so that the eating of the bitter herbs is not part of the Biblical commandment, but is a Rabbinic injunction. In practice this means that when there is no Passover meat the commandment to eat bitter herbs is no longer Biblical. Not only that, if for some reason no bitter herbs are at hand, this does not invalidate the commandment to consume the sacrificial meat. Anyone who has consumed the meat of the Passover even without the bitter herbs, has fulfilled his Biblical duty. Eating unleavened bread on that evening and eating the meat of the Passover are two separate and independent Biblical commandments.

But not the sinews or the bones. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Scripture should have written, “They shall eat it,” without mentioning “the meat.” (Gur Aryeh) The sinews referred to here are the ones so tough that they are not [normally] eaten.

ואכלו את הבשר, “they are to eat the meat;” this is the reason why the people established the custom to take three unleavened loaves of bread on the evening when the meat of the Passover would be consumed. It was a reminder of the three measures of flour Avraham told Sarah to use when baking cakes for what turned out to be the three angels, one of whom predicted when she would give birth to Yitzchok. (Genesis 18,6) The date happened to be that of the first day of Passover, (in the future) as we know from the fact that on the same evening Lot welcomed two of these angels and served them unleavened bread. An alternate version of the significance of the three matzot on our seder dish is that they are to remind us of the three patriarchs. The reason why we break the middle one of these three matzot in half is that it symbolises G–d having split the sea of reeds in half to enable the Jewish people to cross it and escape the pursuit of Pharaoh and his army. We pronounce the special blessing over one half of this middle matzah, as related in the Talmud tractate Pessachim folio 115, as a reminder that it is called the “bread of the poor,” meaning that a poor man does not have a whole loaf of bread at his disposal. The reason why we perform two “dippings” on that night is to serve as a reminder that when becoming officially Jewish after performing the circumcision, both the people themselves and their slaves immersed themselves in a ritual bath. An alternate interpretation is that we had to dip the blood of the Paschal lamb and sprinkle it on the lintel and upright posts, mezuzot, of our homes, to insure that the firstborn Jews would not be killed on that night, as were those of the Egyptians. We recite a further reminder of this by quoting from the Book of Ezekiel, that our redemption was linked to our being kept alive by offering that blood (Ezekiel 16,6). One of the reasons why this ritual is performed on that night is to encourage the children at the table to ask why we perform so many strange acts during that evening instead of proceeding from kiddush to Motzi, breaking bread, directly. Normally, vegetables used to be eaten as a kind of dessert, whereas on this evening we commence with them. We never drink two cups of wine before eating bread, whereas on this evening we make a point of drinking two cups of wine before eating any bread (matzah). As soon as the child sees us pouring the second cup of wine he begins asking questions. The concoction known as charosset that we dip the bitter herbs in, is a reminder of the mortar that was used in the bricks, i.e. its colour. It is composed of ground apples, commemorating an apple in Song of Songs 8,5, in which G–d is described allegorically as having overturned an apple tree at Mount Sinai, at the time when the Jewish people accepted the Torah, having thus aroused the Jewish people to respond with their famous נעשה ונשמע, “we will perform the laws of the Torah as soon as we will hear what they are.” It also contains different spices, resembling in appearance the straw that the Egyptians had withheld from them after Moses had asked Pharaoh for a short vacation to celebrate a religious festival. Our author cites different interpretations of the various items on the seder plate nowadays when we cannot celebrate the real thing, one being the egg the other a roasted bone, the one symbolising the chagigah offering, offered by each pilgrim who came to Jerusalem on that festival, the other symbolising the Paschal lamb, unfortunately also not available while we are in exile. The four cups of wine drank on that night are in commemoration of the four stages of the redemption. The respective words on the Torah are:והוצאתי, והצלתי, וגאלתי, ולקחתי אתכם לי, “I will take you out, I will save you, I will redeem you, and I will acquire you as My people.” (Exodus 6, 6-7.) The fifth expression there, i.e. והבאתי אתכם אל הארץ “I shall bring you to the land, etc.” is actually the purpose of the whole redemption. As per the proverb “when a master releases his slave into freedom, and he gives him a cup of wine to drink, unless he also brings him to a house where he can enjoy that wine as a free man, the whole exercise was in vain.” While we have been deprived of our land being in exile, we do not drink the fifth cup indicating that we look forward, to doing so, the sooner the better. Another way of looking at the ritual of drinking the four cups: They symbolise four different redemptions. Each “cup” has been mentioned in our Scriptures as such, in Psalms 16,5: ה' מנת חלקי וכוסי, “the Lord is my allotted share and portion;” also in Psalms 23,5:כוסי רויה, “my cup is abundant.” The third time we find this reference to our “cup” in Psalms 116,13: כוס ישועות אשא, “I raise my cup of deliverance.” In that verse the reference is not to a single deliverance, but to multiple deliverances. Both refer to the deliverance in the days of the messiah and the world to come respectively. (Compare Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Pessachim, chapter 10, halachah 1. Yet another interpretation about why we drink four cups of wine on the night of the seder. It is a reminder of the four cups that Pharaoh’s chief of the butlers told Joseph about that he had seen in his dream (Genesis 40, 11-13). Still another interpretation sees in the four cups a reference to the four cups of poison that G–d will force the gentile nations to drink in the future, which the prophet Jeremiah has spoken about in Jeremiah 25,15-18. These cups are also referred to in Psalms 75,9 as well as in Jeremiah 51,7 and in Psalms 11,6 as pointed out in the section of the Jerusalem Talmud we quoted earlier.

ואכלו את הבשר בלילה “they are to eat the meat during this night;” at the time when most people are at home.

ומצות על מררים AND UNLEAVENED BREAD WITH מררים — Every bitter herb is called מרור. He commanded them to eat something bitter as a reminder of: (Exodus 1:14) “And they made their lives bitter” (Pesachim 116b).

2: "You shall eat it": And it is juxtaposed to "Do not eat" to say that you shall eat it specifically for the sake of Pesach and not for the sake of unrefined eating.

Any bitter herb is called מרור . [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Matzos and bitter herbs,” comparing one to the other. Just as any seed-plant that turns to leaven may be used for matzah, so too with מרור : any seed-plant that is a bitter herb may be used for מרור .

There is also a disagreement between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish (folio 84 Pessachim) about the permissibility of sinews which though soft after boiling revert to becoming hard when taken out of the water. Rabbi Yochanan feels such sinews are not permissible as food as they are not analogous to "meat," whereas Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish feels that the sinews are sufficiently analogous to flesh to be included under the heading בשר.

בלילה הזה, “during this night.” (On the night between the 14-15^th of Nissan.)

3: "You shall eat it": There are four of this word in the mesora tradition, and two of them are concerning the topic of Pesach.

ומצות על מרורים, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. The plain meaning of the verse seems to be that the roasting of the lamb whole is a symbol of freedom. Freedom means wholeness. The requirement to eat bitter herbs with it is natural; Egyptians used to eat roast meat with something pungent as this enhanced the taste of the meat and enabled the person who ate it to thoroughly enjoy his meal. Letting the bitter herbs precede the meat in his mouth made one more conscious of the contrast and of how something which by itself had tasted bitter would suddenly transform the whole meal into an enjoyable experience. The unleavened bread also contributed to that feeling. We therefore find that there were three components which combined to make the meal enjoyable.

צלי אש, “roasted on the fire;” so that the fragrance of the meat will assail the noses of the Egyptians and they will reflect on what is happening to their deity.

These three components symbolised three things. 1) The exile which had embittered the Israelites' lives; 2) The suddenness of the Exodus so that even their dough did not have time enough to rise. 3) The fact that G'd "passed over" the houses of the Israelites which was a major element of the redemption. This "leap-frogging" severed Israel's previous dependence on the Egyptians which had appeared as incapable of separation. I have explained the nature of the good being inextricably intertwined with the evil in my commentary on Exodus 11,5. Redemption meant the tearing asunder of these bonds between good and evil. These three phenomena had to be experienced simultaneously otherwise the whole redemption would not have been possible. If a single element had been lacking the other two would not even have been miraculous at all by themselves. Without the exile experience no other refining process could have been effective and could have borne fruit. We have explained in our commentary on Genesis 46,3 how the descent into the immoral environment of Egypt was a necessary prelude to "rescuing" the souls that had been taken captive by the forces of the קליפה at the time Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge. This is also the mystical dimension of Kohelet 8,9: "there is a time when one man rules over another to his detriment." Had the Exodus not occurred as abruptly as it did, the Israelites might well have returned to Egypt to become ever more deeply mired in that moral morass. This idea is best expressed by the author of the Haggadah shel Pessach who claims that: "if G'd had not taken us out of there (at the time), then both we and our forefathers would have remained subservient to Pharaoh in Egypt." This is what the Torah means in 12,39 when it testifies that "they could not tarry any longer." The principal element of the redemption was the פסיחה, "the skipping over." Hillel (Pessachim 115) symbolised the importance of the simultaneous occurrence of these three elements when he insisted that we must consume the meat, the bitter herbs and the unleavened bread as a single "sandwich."

על מרורים, “together with bitter herbs.” This was to drive home the memory of the many years their lives had been embittered by the Egyptians. This is why they were not to eat it with something sweet.

אל תאכלו ממנו נא DO NOT EAT OF IT HALF-DONE — flesh that is not roasted as much as it should be is called נא in the Arabic language (cf. Pesachim 41a).

EAT NOT OF IT RAW, NOR SODDEN AT ALL WITH WATER. This commandment applies for all generations [and not merely for the Passover at the time of the exodus], for all commandments here relate to the body of the Passover-offering and therefore apply for all times. But the commandments concerning those that eat thereof — such as your loins girded, etc.,¹⁷⁹Verse 11. and the blood which is to be on the lintel¹⁸⁰Further, Verse 22. — apply only to the Passover of Egypt. And so Scripture says concerning the second Passover-offering: They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs; They shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break a bone thereof; according to all the statute of the Passover they shall keep it.¹⁸¹Numbers 9:11-12. [The expression, according to all the statute, etc.], refers to the law of roasting with fire, and that it is not to be eaten either raw or sodden.¹⁸²These strictures not clearly mentioned in connection with the Second Passover-offering are nevertheles included within the expression, according to all the statute of the Passover they shall keep it.

נא, I believe this means a type of frying in a pot but in its own juice (including the blood) not involving water known as צלי קדר, not roasting directly on the fire, as required by our verse here [so that the blood drips off. Ed.].

כי אם צלי אש, “but only when roasted on the fire.” Seeing the meat had to be consumed in a hurry, and boiling meat takes longer than roasting it.

The Torah tells us ובשל מבושל to include anything boiled. In other words, since it is written ,מים we would think that boiling is forbidden only in water. Therefore it says [the repetitive term] ובשל מבושל , to include all liquids [in the prohibition]. You might ask: Let the verse omit מים and [thereby eliminate the need to say] מבושל , and mention only נא and ובשל ? Re”m answers: Cooking includes roasting, as it is written [later about the korbon Pesach], “You shall cook it and eat it” (Devarim 16:7), and Rashi there explains, “Roasting is also called cooking.” That is why our verse needed to state that only מים [is forbidden to cook with], but not roasting [which is permitted, and consequently Scripture needed to forbid all liquids]. This was needed even though it is written, “But only roasted over fire,” and we would know that here, cooking does not include roasting.

V. 9. נא, (von נוא: gestört werden, in einer angefangenen Bewegung unterbrochen werden, daher נָא: die bittend entgegentretende Partikel, und הניא: die Ausführung einer Absicht hindern): unfertig, halbgar. Der Gegensatz ist: בשל מבושל במים, Garmachung durch Zusatz von Wasser oder sonstigen Flüssigkeiten. Ihr erhaltet die Freiheit fertig aus Gottes Händen und es bedarf dazu nicht erst noch menschlichen Zusatzes. Und ihr erhaltet die Freiheit auf einmal כולו כאחד (siehe Raschi Peßachim 74 a. Mischna) ראשו על כרעיו ועל קרבו, von Kopf und Hand und Fuß und der Tätigkeit der Ernährung und des Lebens fallen die Fesseln mit dem Ganzen zugleich. Dies ראשו וגו׳ vindiziert ihm den symbolischen Charakter.

אל תאכלו ממנו נא, “do not eat any of it while it is still raw;” according to Ibn Ezra, the reason for this prohibition is that seeing that we had slaughtered an animal that was an abomination for the Egyptians the Israelites would not dare to roast or cook it for a long time in order that the Egyptians would not become aware of what they were doing; the Torah insists that everything they were doing should be performed in such a way that the Egyptians would be completely aware of it, hence the line: ראשו על כרעיו ועל קרבו, “its head with its legs with its entrails.” It must not be boiled in a pot as then it would not be seen by the Egyptians, as the pots had lids.

אל תאכלו ממנו נא, “do not eat from it while it is still raw,” if an Egyptian comes along do not remove it from the fire by saying that it is already well done while in effect it is still rare; you might be induced to say something like that out of fear; therefore I command you not to be afraid.

ובשל מבשל NOR SODDEN AT ALL — All this belongs to the prohibition, “Do not eat of it” (The text is, therefore, to be translated as above, and not: Do not eat of it half done, but boiled etc. The words אל תאכלו are to be supplied before בשל and כי אם צלי אש) (Pesachim 41b).

He roasts it all as one with its head together with its legs together with its inner parts. Rashi is clarifying the meaning of the verse, for we might have said that the korbon Pesach’s head, legs and inner parts are all roasted together, and the rest of the sheep by itself. Therefore Rashi explains that the entire sheep is roasted as one.

ובשל מבושל, “nor eat it boiled in water;” according to the plain meaning of the text the prefix ו in the word: ובשל is superfluous; the line means: “please do not eat it boiled in water to hide what it really is.” I want you to roast it on the fire in order that it achieve maximum visibility and smell; the word

במים [BOILED] IN WATER — Whence may it be deduced that this prohibition extends to other liquids also? Because Scripture states here ובשל מבשל, “or boiled at all” (Pesachim 41a.).

And he places its intestines inside after having rinsed them. Re”m writes: “This is true only according to R. Yosi HaGelili, while R. Akiva disagrees and says that this would be like cooking — the intestines should rather be suspended outside the sheep. But it is puzzling that Rashi follows R. Yosi HaGelili’s view rather than R. Akiva’s, when the Halachah generally follows R. Akiva’s view over that of any single Sage who disagrees with him.” The Nachalas Yaakov writes: If Rashi was following R. Yosi’s view, then why would he say that only the intestines are placed inside? He should have said that even the legs are placed inside! Rather, it seems to me that according to Rashi, [all views agree that the intestines are placed inside,] just as all agree that the head is [not] placed inside. And the only disagreement is over the legs. (see Nachalas Yaakov)

נא introduces a request as opposed to a command.

כי אם צלי אש BUT ROAST WITH FIRE — Above (in the preceding verse) Scripture promulgates the law regarding this in the form of an affirmative command; here it adds to that a negative command: Do not eat of it … except roasted by fire. (Consequently one who eats of it in in any manner except roasted by fire is liable to the punishment laid down for transgressing a negative command as well as to that for the infringement of a positive command) (Pesachim 41b).

ראשו על כרעיו ועל קרבו, “its head, legs, and entrails over the fire.” Here too the word על means “with.” Even at the time it is being roasted it should be whole, not cut up. This too is to ensure maximum visibility.

ראשו על כרעיו ITS HEAD WITH ITS LEGS — One roasts it all in one, with its head and with its legs and with its inward parts, and one places its entrails inside it after having rinsed them (Pesachim 74a). The expression על קרבו, is like the expression, (Exodus 6:26) “על צבאותם”, which is the same as בצבאותם, “with their hosts”, which means, “just as they are” (every one of the Israelites). So, too, this phrase means: they shall roast the flesh just as it is — all its flesh, whole.

והנתר ממנו עד בקר AND THAT WHICH REMAINETH OF IT UNTIL THE MORNING — What does Scripture intend to teach by stating עד בקר a second time? It intends to add an earlier stage of morning to the stage of morning already mentioned: because the term morning usually signifies the period beginning with sun-rise, and Scripture here intends to advance the hour and forbid eating it even from the break of day. This is the explanation according to what the text really implies. And there is still another Halacha derived from it: it teaches that it is not to be burnt on the festival itself but on the following day, and this is how you must explain it: “[and ye shall not leave anything of it until the morning]”; והנתר ממנו “and as regards that which is left of it” unto that first morning (עד בקר), until the second morning shalt thou wait, and then shalt thou burn it (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:10; Pesachim 83b; Shabbat 24b).

Because “morning” signifies the time of sunrise. . . This is puzzling, for in many places in the Talmud we see that בקר refers to daybreak עמוד השחר , and Rashi clearly says so himself in Berachos 9a and Pesachim 120b. (Nachalas Yaakov)

(Exodus 12:10) "And you shall not leave over anything of it until the morning, and what is left over of it until the morning, in fire shall you burn it." What is the intent of (the seemingly redundant) "until the morning"? To set a bound for the morning of morning (i.e., that he may eat it (only) until the rising of the morning star, and not until sunrise). Variantly: What is the intent of "until morning"? To teach that it is not burned until the eve of the sixteenth (of Nissan). R. Yishmael says: This is not necessary, for it is written (Ibid. 16) "No labor shall be done in them" (the festival days), and burning is in the category of "labor." What, then, is the intent of "until morning"? If the eve of the sixteenth occurred on Shabbat, it is not burned until the seventeenth. R. Yonathan says: This is not necessary, if where all ochel nefesh overrides the festival — the burning of the left-overs of the Pesach does not override the festival, then, where partial ochel nefesh does not override the Sabbath, how much more so should the burning of the left-overs of the Pesach not override the Sabbath! What, then, is the intent of "until morning"? To set a bound for the morning or morning (see above). R. Yitzchak says: (A verse) is not necessary (to tell us that left-overs of the Pesach may not be burned on the festival). For if the burning of chametz, which is interdicted in being seen or being found, does not override the festival, how much more so should the burning of the left-overs of the Pesach not override the festival. What, then, is the intent of "until morning"? As stated above.

V. 10. ולא תותירו. Wir haben schon (V. 2) bemerkt, dass im Kreise der Opfer der Tag von Morgen zu Morgen zählt; wir haben uns ebenso bereits gesagt (V.7 u. 8) שחיטה ohne אכילה wäre die Vernichtung ohne Wiedergewinnung zur Selbständigkeit erhöhten Seins. Ebenso wäre aber auch von שחיטה losgetrennte אכילה: gewonnene Selbständigkeit nicht auf Grund vorgängiger Aufgebung und Hingebung an Gott. Es muss demnach der Selbstgenuss innerhalb des Opferungstages fallen und so mit der Opferung zeitlich zusammenhängen. Mit dem neuen Morgen ist der Opferungstag vorüber. Ein Übriglassen bis über den Opferungstag hinaus spräche die Möglichkeit der Selbständigkeit ohne Opferung aus, das Übriggebliebene vergegenwärtigte diese zu negierende Voraussetzung, deren Nichtigkeit eben durch Verbrennen desselben auszusprechen ist. שרפת פסולי המוקדשים negiert überall die dem Begriff des jüdischen Heiligtums widerstehenden Ideen, durch deren Merkmal das Objekt zu demselben in Gegensatz geraten. Das Verbrennen ist also eine positive Wiederherstellung der Idee des Heiligtums, fällt somit selbst in die Kategorie der Handlungen des Heiligtums und tritt dies bei שריפת נותר ופגול in solcher Schärfe hervor, dass deren Verbrennen wie שחיטה וזריקה nur am Tage geschehen darf. Die Wiederholung des עד בקר weist darauf hin, dass dies Verbrennen erst am folgenden zweiten Morgen, des 16., geschehen dürfe, da שריפת קדשים אינה דוחה י׳׳ט.

לא תותירו ממנו, “do not leave any leftovers from it;” if you were to do so, no one would know when it had been consumed.

On the following morning go and burn it. The reason why Rashi says עד בקר שני תעמוד ותשרפנו rather than simply quoting the verse, which says עד בקר באש תשרפו , is so that we do not err and say that the verse means that the korbon Pesach should be burned continuously from the first day until the second day. Rashi says that we should not begin to go burn it until the second day. (Re”m) Furthermore, Rashi says תעמוד so we will not think that while the verse prohibits burning it before the second day, one is permitted not to burn it altogether. Therefore Rashi says תעמוד , implying that it is a positive mitzvah to burn it. (Gur Aryeh)

באש תשרופו, “you must burn in the fire by morning (in the event you were forced to leave something over). The point in all this is to demonstrate your disdain of the lamb as a deity.

מתניכם חגרים YOUR LOINS GIRDED — i. e. prepared for the journey (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:11).

מתניכם חגורים, ready to commence marching. We find a similar expression in connection with the prophet Elijah in Kings I 18,46 where he is described as וישנס מתניו, “he bound up his loins.” The expression reflects absolute confidence in G’d’s assistance of the undertaking one is about to embark on. This is displayed while the prisoner is still inside the walls of his jail, the door not having opened yet to let him out.

פסח הוא לה', to insure that G’d’s angel killing the firstborn will bypass the houses with the sign of the blood on their door-frames.

Ready to travel. Rashi means that they do not actually have to belt their waists; rather, they should hurry as though they want to leave to travel.

(Exodus 12:11) "And thus shall you eat it": as those going on a journey. R. Yossi Haglili says: Scripture is hereby teaching proper deportment to those going on a journey — that they do things with despatch. "and you shall eat it in haste": This is the haste of the Egyptians (to make them leave). You say this. But perhaps it is the haste of the Jews (to leave)? (Devarim 16:3) "for in haste you left Egypt" already speaks of the haste of the Jews. How, then, am I to understand "and you shall eat it in haste"? As referring to the haste of Egypt. R. Yehoshua says: "and you shall eat in haste": This is the haste of Israel. You say this. But perhaps it is the haste of the Egyptians? (Exodus 12:39) already speaks of the haste of the Egyptians. How, then, am I to understand "in haste"? As referring to the haste of the Jews. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Elazar: This ("in haste") is the haste of the Shechinah. And even though there is no proof for this, it is intimated in (Song of Songs 2:8) "the voice of my Beloved, behold, it comes," (heralding the redemption, etc.), (Ibid. 9) "Behold, (seeking to redeem us), He stands behind our wall, etc." I might think that this will be so in the future, too. It is, therefore, written (Isaiah 52:12) "But not in haste will you leave, and you will not go out in flight. For the L rd walks before you, and your rear guard is the G d of Israel." "It is a Pesach (offering) to the L rd": All of their acts (in respect to it) are to be for the sake of Heaven.

V. 11. וככה וגו׳: zum Ausdruck der Zuversicht, dass nun der Augenblick zum Auszuge da sei. — חפו ,בחפזון (verwandt mit חפשׂ suchen, חפץ, nach etwas streben) heißt überall eine unfreiwillige Eile, die nicht sowohl einen Gegenstand zu erreichen, als einer Gefahr zu entrinnen strebt.

ואכלתם אותו בחפזון, “you are to eat it in a rush;” the sages decreed that it must be eaten so that it is the completion of the meal, the item that satiates the person eating it. The Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Pessachim chapter 15, halachah 4 explains that this is why the Torah ordered us not to break any of its bones (verse 46) seeing that when a person is overly hungry he is afraid of breaking a bone in his haste and as a result would harm himself. The Babylonian Talmud, tractate Pessachim, folio 84 states that this is a prohibition that applies only to the consumption of the Paschal lamb. Throughout the year, when we eat meat there is no prohibition to break bones and eat the marrow.

וככה תאכלו אותו, “and this is the manner in which you are be dressed when eating it;” you will not sit at a table all ready to enjoy a feast, but will act in haste. Other sacred portions of the sacrifice must always be consumed by treating the meal as a gift from G-d with great respect and with evident enjoyment. Some commentators understand the word בחפזון, “in haste,” as applying to the manner in which the whole meal, including the leavened bread and the bitter herbs is to be consumed. It is to be wolfed down indicating that the person consuming this meal is in a great hurry. The reason that the bitter herbs are to be eaten as an integral part of the course is to enable the consumer to eat it faster. The three constituent items to be consumed symbolize: slavery redemption, and freedom. The bitter herbs symbolize the slavery; the unleavened bread symbolizes freedom and the meat of the Passover symbolizes the act of redemption,being saved. At the time when the Passover lamb was being consumed the firstborn Egyptians were being killed. אל תאכלו ממנו נא “do not eat any part of it while not thoroughly roasted;” by eating meat that has not been thoroughly roasted or boiled, a person is liable to disgorge it involuntarily, resulting in some of it remaining uneaten until morning. ובשל מבושל במים, “nor thoroughly boiled in water;” boiling meat takes longer than roasting it; on that night speed was of the essence. The expression: ויבשלו את הפסח, in Chronicles II35,13, does not refer to “boiling;” this is why the word: במים is not mentioned there. It merely means that the meat of the Passover had been thoroughly roasted and made fit to eat. כי אם צלי אש, “but only roasted on the fire;” the reason that roasting meat is faster than boiling it, is that there is no other element separating it from the fire, such as water or another liquid. It must not be boiled in water or any other liquid even after having been roasted on fire; this is the reason why the expression כי אם צלי אש, has been repeated. (in verse 9) It must not be boiled in a pot (its own juices) even if no other liquid has been added. All of these details have been spelled out in the Talmud in tractate Pessachim folio 41. The manner in which the Torah writes these prohibitions is not analogous to the manner in which the type of woman a High priest must not marry is described in Leviticus 21,12, as here only negative commandments are listed, whereas there the negative commandment is linked to the positive commandment of the High priest marrying a virgin. [I am abbreviating here a little, as I feel the author digressed a little, his remarks being addressed only to Torah students of an advanced level. Ed.] At this point the Torah does not again repeat the words: ”do not eat.” The Torah’s point here is to forbid dividing preparation of the meat of the Passover meal into two or more courses, as this would negate the condition that it be eaten in haste. It does not mean that the entire entrails must be consumed They must only be roasted together with the rest of the meat in order to ensure that there would not be edible parts of the animal left by morning. It is not the custom of people who plan to undertake a journey on the following morning, as did the Israelites, to plan to leave over part of it to be consumed on the next day. This is why the Torah demands that in the event of there being such leftovers at the morning, they have to be burned to ash immediately. If that were not done, these leftovers of a sacred meal would be consumed by dogs, a most unfitting treatment for meat of a sacrifice. Alternately, the leftovers would be thrown into the garbage, an equally demeaning treatment of sacrificial meat. Concerning the Torah writing the words: עד בקר, “until morning” twice, Rashi writes that this means (concerning Passover meat for subsequent years) that seeing that morning would be part of a festival day on which burning other than for the purpose of eating the result is forbidden, the leftover must not be burned until the morning thereafter. There is no reason to raise an objection by saying “why did the sages of the Torah not apply the principle of the positive commandment to burn the leftover to override the negative commandment not to light a fire, so that the leftovers could be burned without delay? Answer: we know that the observance of the festival is itself also rated as a negative commandment in Leviticus 23,39 ,ביום הראשון שבתון, “the first day of the festival is a day that includes work prohibition” (similar to that of the Sabbath)? We have a rule that a positive commandment cannot override a negative commandment when that negative commandment is accompanied by a positive commandment in addition.

בחפזון — This is an expression denoting hurry and haste, similar to, (I Samuel 23:26) “And David made haste (נחפז) to get away”; (2 Kings 7:15) ”which the Arameans had cast away in their haste"

The korbon is called “Pesach” on account of the skipping. . . Rashi is explaining [the verse in light of the following:] “It is a Pesachoffering to Hashem” comes to give the reason why “You must eat it in haste,” [the reason being that haste emulates Hashem’s skipping].

פסח: ,verwandt mit ,פשה ,schreiten, sogar, wie es scheint, rüstig schreiten אפשעה בה (Jes. 27, 4. chald. פסיעה ,פסע überhaupt schreiten, Schritt. (Auch פשה: weiterschreiten, sich ausbreiten). Wenn demnach פסח hinken und פִסֵחַ lahm bedeutet, so scheint hier wiederum, wie in נוע und עלה ,נוח und חלה usw. das ח die Hemmung des Begriffs zu bezeichnen, welchen die Wurzel mit ע ausdrückt. Ähnlich wie umgekehrt צלע hinken und צלח ungehemmt, d. h. mit Beseitigung des צלע bewirkenden Hindernisses, fortschreiten bedeutet. Jedenfalls heißt פסח, da es ganz entschieden hinken und פִסֵםַ ganz entschieden lahm bedeutet, nur ein gehindertes, langsames, zögerndes Dahinschreiten. פסח על heißt daher: zögernd über etwas hinschreiten.

ומקלכם בידכם, “with your walking staffs held in your hands.” These staffs were used to urge on the donkeys as we find in Numbers 22,27: ויך את האתון, “Bileam struck the sheass.”

פסח הוא לה IT IS THE PASSOVER OF THE LORD — The offering is called פסח in allusion to the springing and passing over — because the Holy One, blessed be He, passed over the houses of the Israelites in between the houses of the Egyptians and sprang from Egyptian to Egyptian, whilst the Israelite who was between them escaped. The words “And ye shall eat it in haste for it is a 'springing’-offering to the Lord” imply: Ye, therefore, do every act of sacrificial service connected with it (with the Paschal lamb) in honour of Heaven (God) by way of springing and leaping over (i. e. hastily), as a reminder of its name, which is called, the “springing”-offering. In old French, (Provencal) too, Pascua (the term for the Passover festival) signifies stepping over.

You perform all its service for the sake of Hashem. . . The correct version is [as it appears in this book]: “You perform all its service for the sake of Hashem in a manner of skipping and springing as a remembrance of its name. . .” I.e., the phrase דבר אחר should not preface the words, “In a manner of skipping. . .” (Maharshal)

Jes. 31, 5 werden vier Weisen der Jerusalem zu Teil werdenden göttlichen Beschützung und Rettung bezeichnet: גנון והציל פסוח והמליט, bald Umfriedigung (גנון), dass ihm die Gefahr von keiner Seite nahekommt; bald Rettung (הציל), dass es bereits von der Gefahr ergriffen ist und Gott es der Gefahr aus der Hand schlägt; bald Überschreitung (פסח), dass es mitten in der Gefahr sich befindet und, während ringsum alles der Gefahr zur Beute wird, es allein völlig unangegriffen, von der Gefahr übergangen bleibt; bald Entrinnung (המליט), dass es am Orte der Gefahr mit zu Grunde gegangen wäre, allein Gott ihm zum Entfliehen geholfen. Indem dort גנון und פסוח im Infinitiv, הציל und המליט im tempus finitum ausgedrückt sind, so ist damit gesagt, dass die gewöhnliche, stete Gotteswaltung über Israel גנון und פסוח charakterisiert, הציל und המליט in besondern Fällen notwendig werden. Indem nun ferner פסוח nur ein zögerndes Hinüberführen der Gefahr bedeutet, so ist damit gesagt, dass jederzeit, wenn "zur Rechten Tausend und zur Linken Zehntausend fallen", die Rettung wartet, bis das zu Rettende sich ihrer würdig gemacht. Und dies ist hier vollständig das Peßach. Durch die in diesem Namen zusammengefassten Handlungen sollte sich Israel erst würdig machen, dass das die ägyptischen Häuser treffende Verderben über ihre Häupter hinüberschritte. In diesem Bewusstsein sollen sie das Peßachopfer genießen, sollen sich der auch über ihren Häusern schwebenden Gefahr wohl bewusst sein, der sie nur durch das bewusstvolle Genießen des ihren Hirtenbund mit Gott schließenden Peßachopfers entgehen konnten. Diese Stimmung des Eilens, um einer drohenden Gefahr zu entgehen, drückt vollständig חפזון aus, und es begreift sich der Zusammenhang: ,ואכלתם אותו בחפזון פסח הוא לד׳ nur langsam und zögernd schreitet die Gefahr über eure Häupter hinweg (פסח); darum zögert nicht, euch des Entrinnens würdig zu machen (חפזון).

ואכלתם אותו בחפזון, “you are to eat it in haste.” You were slated to leave Egypt in a hurry.”

Wenn ר׳ עקיבא (Berachoth 9 a.) das חפזון auf die Eilfertigkeit des erst am Morgen stattgehabten Auszugs bezieht und damit den Satz begründet, der das Essen des Peßachs bis zum Morgen gestattet: עד שעת חפזון, so kann damit wohl schwerlich gemeint sein, es beziehe sich dies חפזון nur auf die dringende Eile des Auszuges; es heißt ja בחפזון und nicht עד חפזון, und würde ja daraus zu folgern sein, dass Peßach sei nur am Ende der Nacht, oder gar erst mit beginnendem Morgen zu essen. Vielmehr dürfte ר׳׳ע nur haben sagen wollen, die ganze Nacht bis zum anbrechenden Morgen sei eine Zeit des חפזון's gewesen, und wenn nach Mitternacht das חפזון der Todesgefahr vorübergewesen, so habe eben da das חפזון des Auszugs begonnen und es sei daher die ganze Nacht bis zum Morgen das Peßach zu essen gestattet. ראב׳׳ע setzt gar keine Unruhe bei Israel voraus, da es ja, wie in der מכילתא diese Ansicht begründet wird, לא יחרץ כלב לשונו heißt, und bezieht das חפזון lediglich auf die mit der Mitternacht über Ägypten gekommene Bestürzung und wäre dann der Zusammenhang ואכלתם וגו׳ פסח וגו׳ der: während draußen über Ägypten die drängende Bestürzung kommt, esset ihr ruhig euer Opfermahl, es ist eben ein "die Gefahr über euch hinwegführendes" Mahl. Schwierig bleibt dann aber immer das ב, welches nicht die Begrenzung der Zeit, sondern die Dauer derselben bedeutet.

'פסח הוא לה, “it is a Passover offering for the Lord.” The reason that the offering is called “Passover,” is because G-d passed over the houses of the Israelites marked with the blood of the lamb when killing the respective firstborn inside them. The fact that you had performed all the activities He had demanded of you, enabled the attribute of Justice to skip your homes. We encounter something similar in a prayer composed by Moses in Deuteronomy 26,15: השקיפה ממעון קדשך מן השמים, “look down (benignly) from Your holy residence, from heaven;” (recited by the farmer who announced that he had complied with all the tithes applicable to his harvest)

ועברתי AND I WILL PASS — This is not to be taken literally, but is speaks of God as one speaks of a king who passes from place to place (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:12:1) but in this case all were punished at a single passage and in one moment.

AND AGAINST ALL THE GODS OF EGYPT WILL I EXECUTE JUDGMENTS. The idol of wood rotted, and the one of metal melted.¹⁸³This is the language of Rashi. The Mechilta here has it: “the metal idols corroded.”
Now Scripture did not elucidate the nature of these judgments because the vanities by which they are instructed are but timber.¹⁸⁴Jeremiah 10:8. In other words, Scripture finds it inappropriate to speak at length about these hollow and worthless abominations. Similarly, at the time when this actually took place, it is written, And the Eternal smote all the firstborn … and all the firstborn of cattle,¹⁸⁵Further, Verse 29. but does not mention the judgments executed against their gods. Their apprehension [on that night] concerned the death of the firstborn, as it is said, And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians,¹⁸⁶Ibid., Verse 30. The verse there clearly states that “the great cry” was due to the death of the firstborn. whereas the judgments executed against their idols did not come to be known till the morning when they went to the house of their abominations. And it is written, And the Egyptians were burying them that the Eternal had smitten among them, even all their firstborn, and upon their gods the Eternal executed judgments.¹⁸⁷Numbers 33:4. The verse clearly hints that on the morning [of the fifteenth day of Nisan], when the Egyptians were burying the dead, they discovered that judgments had also been executed against their idols.
In my opinion, Scripture alludes here to the lords on high, the gods of Egypt, something like the verse, The Eternal will punish the host of the high heavens on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.¹⁸⁸Isaiah 24:21. Thus He subdued the power of the Egyptians and that of the lords over them. But Scripture hints and deals briefly with hidden matters.

ועברתי, in the sense of Psalms 78,50 יפלס נתיב לאפו, “He cleared a path for His anger;” something an agent, i.e. angel could not do. [once the agent has been given permission to wreak havoc, he cannot distinguish between the innocent and the guilty in that domain. Ed.]

אעשה שפטים. This was because the Egyptians had put their trust in these deities; G’d had to demonstrate their utter helplessness to help themselves, much less those who worshipped them. It was an indirect response to Pharaoh’s insolence in asking “Who is Hashem, etc.?” (5,2)

ובכל אלוה' מצרים אעשה שפטים, “and I will execute judgments on all the deities of Egypt.” Rashi, in illustrating how these judgments of the idols of the Egyptians were carried out, says that if the deities had been made of wood, the wood would rot, whereas if they had been made of metal, the metal would melt. Nachmanides points out that Rashi had failed to explain that the reason why the Torah had not given us these details may be understood in light of Jeremiah 10,8 ומוסר הבלים עץ הוא, “(according to Malb’im) seeing that in our imperfect world the instruments of enforcing discipline are usually made of wood, sticks to beat with, etc., although foolish people also make deities out of wood, destroying everything made of wood would hardly teach man a lesson. This is also why when the plague of the killing of the firstborn is carried out, the Torah does not mention precisely which of the Egyptian deities were destroyed, as the word כל is noticeably absent there. Moreover, destroying their idols at night would not worry the Egyptians, who, 1) worried first of all about their own lives, 2) did not become aware until daylight that something had happened to their personal idols. It would therefore not have had the desired effect at the appropriate time. Nachmanides therefore proposes the following: mention of the deities of the Egyptians refers to the respective representatives at the heavenly throne of the people of Egypt, their mazzal. The fact that the Torah writes (Numbers 33,4) that the Egyptians were busy burying their dead and that G’d had killed their deities lends support to Nachmanides’ interpretation.

As if He were a king who passes from place to place. . . Rashi is saying that Hashem was like a king who passes straight through without turning aside into the city’s alleys. Although Hashem passed through on one road only, the first-borns of Egypt were struck whether they were on that road or elsewhere. This is what “I will pass through” comes to teach us. (Re”m)

“and against all the deities worshipped in Egypt;” this is to be understood in the same way as when G-d said to Moses that He had appointed him as an elohim in relation to Pharaoh in 7,1, or as in Samuel II 7,23: אשר הלכו אלהים, “which G-d set out, etc.;” the word describes a terrestrial superpower as compared to a celestial superpower. [My words, Ed.] This power is higher than the Pharaoh of the land.

כל בכור בארץ מצרים ALL THE FIRSTBORN IN THE LAND OF EGYPT — also the first-born of other nations who happened then to be in Egypt. And whence may we deduce that the first-born of the Egyptians who happened to be in other countries also died? From what Scripture states: (Psalms 136:10) “To Him that smote the Egyptians in their first-born” (an unqualified statement) (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:12:2).

I WILL EXECUTE JUDGMENTS: I AM THE ETERNAL. “I Myself and not by means of the¹⁸⁹“The messenger.” In our text of Rashi: “a messenger.” Ramban’s version will be explained further on in the text. messenger.” Thus the language of Rashi. But the Midrash of the Sages is not so. Instead, the Midrash reads:¹⁹⁰Mentioned in the Hagadah recited on the night of Passover. “And I will go through the land of Egypt — I, and not an angel. And I will smite all the firstborn — I, and not a seraph. And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments — I, and not the messenger. I am the Eternal — I am He, and no other.” The purport of the Midrash is as follows: Since this chapter contains the words of Moses to Israel,¹⁹¹As indicated in Verse 3 above: Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying…. it would have been proper for the verse here to say, “And the Eternal will go through the land of Egypt and He will smite all the firstborn,” [instead of saying, And I will go through]. It is for this reason that the Rabbis interpreted the expression, and I will go through the land of Egypt, as meaning “I Myself” and not a messenger sent by Him in plagues, as in the days of David¹⁹²II Samuel 24:16. and Sennacherib.¹⁹³II Kings 19:35. “And I will smite all the firstborn — I, and not a seraph,” means that the striking of the plague will be done by the Holy One, blessed be He, and not like a king who wreaks vengeance on his enemies through his executioners, their counterparts on high being the seraphim from whom the fire comes forth consuming His enemies, as in the case of Elijah and the captain of the fifty.¹⁹⁴Ibid., 1:10. “And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments, and not by means of the messenger” sent by Him, blessed be He, for whatever is to be done upon the earth. This is the great angel, who on account of it is called Mattatron, the meaning of the word being “the guide of the road.” Thus the Rabbis have said in the Sifre:¹⁹⁵Sifre, Ha’azinu, 338. “The Holy One, blessed be He, was the mattatron (guide) for Moses, and He showed him the entire Land of Israel.” And in the [Midrash] Yelamdeinu¹⁹⁶Literally: “May [our master] teach us.” This was a Midrash which contained homilies that opened with the expression yelamdeinu rabbeinu (may our master teach us) i.e., about some matter of Halachic (legal) content. The Rabbi answered the question briefly and then turned to elaborate on the moral and ethical aspects connected therewith. This Midrash is now practically lost except for some sections found in the Tanchuma. The particular Midrash Ramban mentions here is found in the Aruch, under the root mattator. we find: “And Balak heard that Balaam came¹⁹⁷Numbers 22:36. for Balaam sent his mattatron before him.” And it is furthermore written there:¹⁹⁸This Midrash too is found in the Aruch, under the root mattator, which mentions it in the name of the Yelamdeinu. “Behold, I have begun to deliver up Sihon and his land before thee.¹⁹⁹Deuteronomy 2:31. Do not let it worry you. I am your mattatron. And be not surprised at this for I am even to be the mattatron before an uncircumcised person, i.e., before Cyrus [king of Persia], as it is said, I will go before thee.²⁰⁰Isaiah 45:2. Before a woman — Deborah and Barak — I will lead on the way, as it is said, Is not the Eternal gone out before thee.”²⁰¹Judges 4:14. [We find this word mattatron] also in many other places. I have also heard that in the Greek language, a messenger is called mattator. And [finally] the Rabbis interpreted [in the Midrash mentioned at the beginning of this discussion]: “I am the Eternal — I am He, and no other,” meaning that He is one, and there is no other god beside Him to protest against His act. This is the purport of this Midrash.

והכיתי כל בכור, “I, personally, seeing I can distinguish between the drops of semen which become a firstborn and those that do not.”

Also other first-born who were in Egypt. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, what does [the verse’s repetition of] בארץ מצרים come to teach?

אעשה שפטים, “I will execute judgments.” These will be of a physical nature, causing pain. Compare Chronicles II24,24, ואת יואש, “and upon Yoash they inflicted punishments.” In every house where there was a biological firstborn he was killed; in a house which did not have a biological firstborn, the most senior person was killed. In this verse the word elohim is not to be understood as a deity, as it is impossible to inflict physical pain on something which is not made of flesh and blood, and which is not alive. Rashi here understands the words אלוהי מצרים as referring to idols made of wood or molten metal cast in a form.

מאדם עד בהמה FROM MAN TO BEAST — He who first began the wrongdoing, from him began the punishment (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:12:2).

ובכל אלוהי מצרים אעשה שפטים, I will humble the celestial representatives of the nation of Egypt. Once I have neutralised them, I can apply My retribution to their protégées with increased force.

I myself, not through an agent. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “I will execute judgments,” and then adds, “I am Hashem,” [to indicate that Hashem did it Himself]. If so, on the verse “Hashem struck down every first-born” (v. 29), why does Rashi comment: “He and His Divine court”? The answer is: Since He Himself was striking, it was not considered through an agent even though His Divine court was with Him.

ובכל אלהי מצרים AND AGAINST ALL THE GODS OF EGYPT [WILL I EXECUTE JUDGEMENTS] — An idol of wood rotted, and one of metal melted and was poured out on the ground (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:12:3)).

'אני ה. This is something reserved for G’d personally, exclusively. The author of the Haggadah shel Pessach paraphrases this by writing אני הוא ולא אחר, “I alone and no one else.” This expression explains all that has been written before, i.e. why in this instance G’d personally had to mete out the retribution as opposed to the angel who killed 185,000 men of Sancheriv’s army all in the same night without assistance. (Kings II 19,35) There the angel did not have to divine who was a firstborn and who was not.

'אעשה שפטים אני ה I WILL EXECUTE JUDGEMENTS, I, THE LORD — I, Myself, and not by means of a messenger (Pesikta Zotarta).

Roasted.

והיה הדם לכם לאת AND THE BLOOD SHALL BE UNTO YOU FOR A SIGN — it shall be to you for a sign, and not to others for a sign (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:13:1). From this we may learn that they put the blood only inside their houses.

ולא יהיה בכם נגף למשחית, so you will not be struck with a plague as a corollary to the retributive action I am taking against Egypt.

ולא יהיה בכם נגף למשחית, "so there will be no plague against you to destroy, etc." What is meant is that the destructive force (angel of death) will have no excuse to attack you rather than his other natural targets; he will notice the blood on the doorposts of your homes as if it were the seal of the Almighty and be afraid to approach and inflict harm. This was the reason G'd commanded the Israelites to use the blood as a sign. Should you say that in that case any Egyptian hiding out in the house of an Israelite which bore the sign of that blood could escape the plague, the Torah wrote בכם, the restrictions on the angel of death applied only "to you." The "light" of having performed the commandment illuminated only Israel; we find confirmation of this in Isaiah 60,2: ועליך יזרח ה וכבודו עליך יראה, "but upon you the Lord will shine and His Presence will be seen over you."

V. 13. לכם לאות: zum symbolischen Ausdruck der in diesem Blute ausgesprochenen völligen Hingebung eures Wesens an Gottes Führung. — נגף למשחית soviel als: נגף להיות משחית ein Stoß, der zu einem vernichtenden wird.

והיה הדם לכם לאות, “the blood (on your door frames) will serve as symbol on your behalf;” it will signal that you kept G-d’s commandments. A different interpretation: “the blood will serve as a reminder to G-d that the Egyptians have spilled your blood.”

וראיתי את הדם AND WHEN I SEE THE BLOOD — But surely everything is manifest to Him and He therefore did not need to look whether the blood had been put on the door-posts? But the meaning is: God says, I will set My eye (my attention) to take notice of the fact that you are engaged in the performance of My commands — then will I pass over you (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:13:1).

בהכותי, G’d caused other harm to the Egyptians during that night, in addition to killing all their firstborn. Had it not been for the “passing over” He had performed as an act of pity for the Israelites, they would not have escaped that judgment even if their firstborn had not been killed. The matter is similar to what the angel had told Lot concerning his not turning around, when he warned פן תספה בעון העיר, “lest you will be wiped out on account of the guilt of the people inside the city.” (Genesis 19,15) G’d commanded the Israelites to smear the blood as a sign so that they would escape. This was for the sake of His great name, as we know from Ezekiel 20,9 when the prophet reminded the people that G’d had said בדמיך חיי, בדמיך חיי, ”by your blood you shall live, by your blood you shall live.”(Ezekiel 16,6) [both the blood of the circumcision and that of the Passover lamb. Ed.]

וראיתי את הדם, “as soon as I will see the blood, etc.” Even though the blood that the Egyptians had spilled was inside their bodies and as such not visible from the outside, everything is visible to G-d. The following is in response to the question of how the angel could see this even though G-d could see it. The text sounds as if G-d is speaking about Himself. The fact is that once G-d has appointed an angel as His executor, that angel assumes the role of the One Who has appointed him, and when the Torah Speaks of: “when I see,” the reference is to the emissary whom G-d appointed. He is entitled to use that description as applicable to himself while on that mission. The author’s point about the role of the messenger, i.e.angel, is proved when the Torah speaks of G-d not giving the destroyer permission to kill Jewish firstborn. The part of the Exodus story which was orchestrated by G-d personally, without the help of any angels, was that of taking the Jewish people out of Egypt. This is emphasised in the haggadah of Passover where the author writes, quoting Deuteronomy 26,8: ויוציאנו ה' ממצרים, “the Lord took us out of Egypt,” and the author of the haggadah adds; לא על ידי מלאך “not by means of an angel;” לא על ידי שרף, “not through a higher ranking angel called seraph; ולא על ידי שליח, “and not by means of any other agent at His disposal;. אלא הקדוש ברוך הוא בכבודו ובעצמו, “but only the Holy One blessed be He, in His glory, personally.

ופסחתי — This signifies I WILL SPARE you; similar to this is, (Isaiah 31:5) “Sparing (פסוח) and delivering”. (This is the explanation of Menachem ben Seruk). But I say that wherever the root פסח occurs it is an expression for leaping and springing over, so that ופסחתי here denotes that He sprang from the houses of the Israelites when He reached them, without having entered them, to the houses of the Egyptians — for they (the Egyptians and the Israelites) dwelt one next to the other. Of a like import is, (1 Kings 18:21) “How long will ye leap (פוסחים) upon two twigs?” So, too, all פסחים lame people walk as though they were springing, and are therefore termed פסחים. This, too, is the meaning of, (Isaiah 31:5) פסוח והמליט “He springs over him and delivers him” from amongst those who are being killed.

”ופסחתי עליכם, “I will pass over you; “the word פסח is a variant of פסע; it appears again in the same sense as here in Kings I 18,26: ויפסחו על המזבח, where the prophet Elijah mocked the priests of the Baal and they jumped over the altar again and again to no avail.

ולא יהיה בכם נגף AND THE INFLICTION SHALL NOT BE UPON YOU — but it will be upon the Egyptians. — In the case that an Egyptian was in an Israelite’s house one might think that he would escape! Therefore Scripture says: “and the infliction shall not be upon you”, but it shall be upon the Egyptians who happen to be in your houses! In the case that an Israelite was in an Egyptians house, I might understand from this that he would be smitten just the same as he (the Egyptian)! Therefore Scripture says, “and the affliction shall not be upon you”, wherever you may happen to be (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:13:2).

לזכרון [AND THIS DAY SHALL BE UNTO YOU] FOR A MEMORIAL — in future generations (i. e. in the future).

חקת עולם תחגהו, "you will celebrate it as an everlasting statute." Why did the Torah not only use the expression לדורותיכם, "for your generations" which it uses normally? While it is true that the Mechilta states that the word "your generations" would imply only the minimum, i.e. two generations, and the expression חקת עולם means forever, it is still peculiar that the Torah had to use both expressions. The reason is connected to the discussion in Berachot 12 about the verse "in order that you remember the day you came out of Egypt for all the days of your life (including messianic times)." The opposing interpretation of that verse claims that the words "all the days of your life" mean "the whole days of your life" i.e. including the nights (Deut. 17,3). If the Torah had only used the words חקות עולם, I might have concluded that this day is to be observed only during periods when the Jewish people are free and independent; when they are in exile, however, I could argue that there would be no occasion to especially mark that date, therefore the Torah had to add the word לדורותיכם to tell us that the Passover rites are to be observed not only when we are free and independent but even when we are in exile. It is a statute, חוקה, and does not depend on our circumstances.

תחגוהו; the construction with the (chataf) kametz is in order when the root is חגג; a similar example would be Job 40,22 יסובוהו ערבי נחל, “the willows of the brook surround him.” There too, the root is סבב with a double consonant. On the other hand, when the root is חגה, as for instance in other examples of the ה"י categories of verbs such as כלה, or צוה, the correct vocalisation would be with the vowel patach i.e. techaguhu as in kaluhu, or tetzavu.

For [future] generations. Rashi explains this so we will not make a mistake and say that “for you” means only for this generation. Although it is written afterwards, “Throughout your generations,” thus Rashi did not really need to explain this, he did so to connect it to וחגותם אתו . (Nachalas Yaakov)

V. 14. Schmot 34, 25: ולא ילין לבקר זבח חג הפסח, wird der 14. Nissan entschieden חג genannt. Selbst das ולא ילין חלב חגי עד בקר (Kap. 23, 18) wird von einigen auf das קרבן פסח bezogen (siehe מ׳למלך zu הל׳ קרבן פסח א׳ ז). Es kann daher sehr wohl היום הזה sich auf den 14. Nissan beziehen. — חגג ,חיי) חקת עולם, חכך ,חקק, siehe Jeschurun VIII. 436). So wie לחם חק׳ ,חק לכהנים usw. das jemandem als das ihm Zukommende, ihm Gebührende, Erforderliche, Bestimmte bedeutet, so ist חק und חוקה im Gesetze immer dasjenige, was Gott zur Pflege, Erhaltung, Verwirklichung einer Idee, eines Verhältnisses usw. diesen als von uns ihnen zu Zollendes bestimmt hat. So ist פסח דורות dasjenige, wodurch die mit יציאת מצרים beabsichtigte Grundlegung unserer Nationalität als Gottesvolk für immer neu belebt, gepflegt und dadurch eben verwirklicht wird.

לכם לזכרון, “for you as a remembrance.” Prior to this verse the Torah dealt with Passover that the Israelites sacrificed and ate while in Egypt. From here on we have the legislation dealing with how to commemorate this event annually for all future generations. Whereas in Egypt, this ritual was a condition in order to bring about the redemption, from now on it would serve as a reminder of who it was who gave us freedom, not Pharaoh, neither did we gain freedom by our own efforts, but our freedom is due exclusively to the direct intervention of G-d personally in our fate.לדורותיכם חקת עולם, “for your generations as an everlasting statute.” According to Rashi, the last two words were added seeing that the word לדורותיכם, without a number, could be understood as the customary minimum plural mode, i.e. only two generations. You might counter that we have been taught in the Talmud Baba batra foliol20 that this is an instance the word לדורותיכם by itself is to be understood as an unlimited number of generations, so how could Rashi have written what he did? We must therefore understand Rashi as telling us that the word לדורותיכם even without the additional words חקת עולם, “an everlasting statute,” always means just that, as opposed to other nouns which appear in the plural mode.

וחגתם אתו AND YE SHALL CELEBRATE IT AS A FEAST— Scripture states: the day that is to serve you as a memorial, that day thou shalt celebrate as a feast, but we have not yet heard which is the day that is to be a memorial; therefore Scripture says (Exodus 13:3) “Remember (זכור) this day in which ye went out” and this teaches us that the day of the Exodus itself is the day which is to be the memorial (זכרון). Now, on which day did they go forth? Scripture states, (Numbers 33:3) “On the morrow after the Passover-sacrifice they went forth”. Thus you must say that the day of the fifteenth of Nisan is that of the Feast, for on the night of the fifteenth (i. e. what we would term the night following the day of the fourteenth) they ate the Passover-sacrifice, and consequently on the next morning they went forth (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:14:1).

Which day is the day of remembrance. This is because the Torah previously mentioned [several dates on which significant events occurred:] the first of Nisan, the tenth, and the fourteenth.

לדרתיכם וגו׳ [YE SHALL CELEBRATE IT] FOR YOUR GENERATIONS etc. — I might understand from this that it need be celebrated only for the minimum of a plurality of generations, viz., two; therefore Scripture goes on to state “an ordinance for ever shall ye celebrate it as feast” (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:14:3).

The Torah therefore says: “As a statute forever shall you celebrate it.” We need not ask: Now [that it says “forever”], why do we need “throughout your generations”? The answer is: Otherwise, I would think it is an eternal statute for this generation to celebrate it every year, but not for future generations. Therefore, both phrases are necessary. (Nachalas Yaakov)

שבעת ימים denotes a septaine (old French) of days.

שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו, "You shall eat unleavened bread for seven days, etc." This is connected to the fact that the Israelites' dough did not rise due to the suddenness of the redemption. You may well ask how the Torah could legislate (verse 14) a memorial for something that had not even taken place yet? After all, the dough did not rise because of the constant motion of the people carrying it on their backs, something that occurred on the morrow! They had not even slaughtered the Passover lamb yet and already the Torah speaks of an annual memorial to something that had not happened as yet! The whole Exodus would not occur until after the Israelites had slaughtered the Passover and eaten it with unleavended bread, and had thereby acquired the merit enabling G'd to take them out of Egypt! This is the day which G'd would remember for them in order to take them out, etc.

שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו, “you will eat unleavened bread for seven days.” The Torah commanded that unleavened bread be eaten for the seven days of the Matzot festival and that the first and last day be observed as “holy convocations,’ i.e. that on those days there is a work prohibition. The first day is holy as it commemorates the beginning of the redemption, the last day as it represents its conclusion. You are aware already that the seven days symbolise the six directions plus G’d all of whom partake in G’d’s and Israel’s joy. The involvement of G’d and His emanations in this joy is the reason we have been warned in Nechemyah concerning the need to rejoice on a festival viz.: “Go eat choice foods and drink sweet drinks and send portions to whoever has nothing prepared, for the day is holy to our Lord. Do not be sad for the rejoicing in the Lord is the source of your strength.”

This teaches that on the seventh day of Pesach it is not obligatory to eat matzoh. . . [Rashi knows this] because of what is written in Devarim 16:8 [at the end of the verse of “Six days shall you eat matzos]: “And on the seventh day shall be a festival to Hashem your God.” If there was an obligation to eat matzoh on the seventh day, it should say expressly, “And on the seventh day you shall eat matzos and it shall be a festival.” This would be needed since that verse begins, “Six days shall you eat matzos,” hinting not on the seventh — thus we would think that the seventh day is an exception to the rule of eating matzoh. Therefore, [since at the end of the verse the seventh day is mentioned as being a festival while matzoh is omitted,] the verse is teaching [in the format of דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד ] that the seventh day is a festival alone, without an obligation to eat matzoh. We need not ask: Why is it not written, “In the evening you shall eat matzoh; for seven days do not eat chometz”? And then we would know that matzoh is obligatory on the first night, and optional for the remaining seven days. The answer is: We would then think that the verse means to start eating matzoh in the evening, and continue eating it all seven days in place of eating chometz. (See Re”m for further elaboration; what appears here is sufficient to understand Rashi.)

V. 15. שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו kann nicht das Gebot enthalten: sieben Tage lang מצות zu essen, denn wo die Tages- oder Jahreszahl nicht mit ב־ ausgedrückt ist, wie z. 8. בערב תאכלו, da drückt es notwendig eine Bestimmung aus, die die ganze Zeit durchdauert. So will: כי ששת ימים עשה ד׳ וגו׳ nicht sagen, in wie viel Tagen an der Schöpfung gearbeitet worden, sondern dass sechs Tage lang die Schöpfung ununterbrochen fortdauerte und erst mit dem siebenten Tage zum Abschluss gelangte. Als positives Gebot würde es demnach gebieten, ununterbrochen sieben Tage lang מצות zu essen, was ein Unsinn wäre. Es kann daher nur die Negation enthalten, sieben Tage lang, wenn man Brot essen will, nur Ungesäuertes essen zu dürfen. Ganz ebenso: בסכת תשבו שבעת ימים, das ebenso nur die Negation enthalten kann, wenn man in diesen sieben Tagen wohnen wollte, nur in סוכת wohnen zu dürfen, welches nicht ausschließt, die sieben Tage etwa auf Reisen zuzubringen. Positiv würde auch dies nämlich das Gebot enthalten, sieben Tage ununterbrochen in der סוכה bleiben zu müssen. Hierauf bezöge sich denn auch das: אך ביום הראשן ,אך. Die auf den ersten, den Peßachtag, folgenden sieben Mazzottage haben in betreff des מצה direkt nur jenen negativen Charakter. Allein an jenem ersten, dem Peßachtage, dem 14., tritt das positive Gebot ein: תשביתו שאור וגו׳. — Ebenso heißt es ferner nicht: כי כל אוכל חמץ מיום הראשן עד יום השביעי ונכרתה וגו׳, dann wäre nur der חייב כרת, welcher ununterbrochen vom ersten bis zum siebenten Tage nichts als חמץ gegessen hätte. So aber heißt es: Mit jedem חמץ-Essen wird man חייב כרת vom ersten bis zum siebenten Tage, d. h. man wird ח׳׳ב כרת על כל כזית וכזית. Das אך ביום הראשן וגו׳ ist Parenthese und das כי כל אוכל וגו׳ ist motivierende Ausführung des שבעת ימים וגו׳, wodurch eben die mehr negative Bedeutung dieses Gebotes deutlich hervortritt und bezieht sich naturgemäß dann dieses zweite יום הראשן nur auf den ersten dieser sieben Tage, somit den 15. Nissan. — Indem ferner hier das אך im Gegensatz zu der die ganze siebentägige Zeit ausfüllenden Bestimmung תאכלו der שבעת ימים steht, und somit das אך ביום ראשן וגו׳ ein positives Gebot einführt, das wohl an diesem ersten Tage, aber nicht am ganzen Tage zu erfüllen sein soll, so ist damit von selbst diesem אך die Bedeutung: חלק (Peßachim 5 a.) aufgedrückt, wonach das Gebot erst mit der zweiten Hälfte des Tages eintritt.

אך ביום הראשון, but on the first day, etc.: [the Torah now speaks of observances of the Passover in the future, as stated in verse 14 Ed.] The Torah warns that all leavened products must have been removed already on the “first” day, i.e. on the 14th of the month when the Paschal lamb has been slaughtered. Compare what our author has explained on Genesis 2,2: ויכל אלוקים ביום השביעי, “the Lord had completed on the seventh day.” He had completed on the sixth day, as the Torah described G–d as having “rested” on the seventh day.

שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו, “you are to eat unleavened bread for seven days.” Rashi tackles the problem that in Deuteronomy 16,8 the Torah writes that we are to eat unleavened bread for six days, whereas the seventh day is to be observed as the last day of the festival. This, according to Rashi, appears to teach that on that day no more unleavened bread need be eaten, as long as no leavened bread is eaten. How do we know that even during the first six days the eating of unleavened bread is also voluntary? It is learned from a certain rule applied to exegesis of the written text of the Torah, known as: דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד, לא ללמד על עצמו יצא, “when something had first been included in a general proposition, and then appears to have provided for an exception to that proposition only in order to teach something additional, this new instruction does not only apply to the new situation cited as example, but applies to the proposition as a whole.” In other words, all the seven days on which unleavened bread was to be eaten is contained as a proposition in our verse. The verse cited from Deuteronomy now came to teach an additional dimension of the proposition first legislated in our verse here. Having heard that eating unleavened bread on the seventh day is not obligatory, it follows that neither is the commandment to eat unleavened bread for six days. It was written only because eating leavened bread is prohibited during all the seven days. In order not to mislead us into believing that even on the first night of the festival the eating of unleavened bread is also “only” voluntary, the Torah wrote a special verse commanding the eating of the meat of the Passover offering together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs on that evening. [It is easy for us nowadays to remember this, as we recite a special benediction when eating unleavened bread only at the seder table on the first night. As far as the other meal times during the festival are concerned, if we wish to deny ourselves the pleasure of eating bread, we are free to do so. The line: בערב תאכלו מצות, spells out the duty to eat unleavened bread on that night. (Exodus 12,20) שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו, “you will eat matzot for seven days.” These seven days are symbolic of what our author terms the quarter month which was the duration of most of the plagues; שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו, this commandment is valid for all future generations and is an appendix to the words in verse 14 preceding it that חוקת עולם תחגהו, “you are to celebrate it as a festival forever.” These words could not possibly have referred to the unleavened bread the Israelites had eaten in Egypt, for even though the amount they had baked apparently lasted them for 61 meals each (30 days) it was eaten as a fulfillment of a commandment only on the first night.

שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו SEVEN DAYS SHALL YE EAT UNLEAVENED BREAD — But in another passage it slates: (Deuteronomy 16:8) “Six days shalt thou eat unleavened bread”! This teaches regarding the seventh day of the Passover that it is not obligatory to eat unleavened bread on it, but only this is required viz., that one should not eat leavened food. Whence may we derive that the other six days, too, are optinal as regards the eating of unleavened bread? From what Scripture states: “Six days [shalt thou eat unnleavened bread]”. For the following is a Rule by which the Torah may be expounded: Anything that is included in a general statement and goes out (i. e. Scripture singles it out) from this general statement for the purpose of teaching something, does not go out from it in order to teach something regarding itself alone but it goes out from it to teach something about everything that is included in the general statement. Now the seventh day is included in the general statement “Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread”, and in the text “Six days shall thou eat unleavened bread” it has left the general statement. How is it with the seventh day? It is optional as regards the eating of unleavened bread, (as explained in the earlier portion of this comment)! This, according to the above rule, applies also to everything that was included in the general statement i. e. to the whole seven days, and therefore the other six days are also optional in this respect! One might think that the first night of the Passover is also optional (since it is part of the first day when as we have just shown the eating of unleavened bread is optional), therefore Scripture states, (v. 18) “at evening ye shall eat unleavened bread” Scripture thus fixes it as obligatory for that night (Pesachim 120a).

Something that was included in a general rule and was singled out. . . The Rashbam explains (Pesachim 120a) that the seventh day was included in [the general rule of our verse,] “You must eat matzos for seven days.” But it was singled out in Devarim: “And on the seventh day shall be a festival to Hashem your God.” For there, “you shall eat matzos” is not mentioned. This teaches about itself: on the seventh day, matzoh is merely optional. From this method we derive that it was singled out not only to teach about itself; rather, to teach something new concerning the rule as a whole. (Re”m rejects this approach and explains it differently; [see previous entry].)

In support of our contention that the Torah here does not speak of a commandment to eat unleavened bread for seven days, you will note that Pessachim 120 arrives at the conclusion that the mention of "seven days you shall eat unleavened bread" in our verse is not a commandment but a voluntary observance, the commandment to eat unleavened bread applying only on the night the Passover is eaten; the duty to eat unleavened bread became effective only on the evening preceding the Exodus. In later generations, the eating of unleavened bread was not a reminder of a miracle at all. Perhaps the manner in which the Torah reports this legislation is meant to tell us that the eating of unleavened bread on the night of the Passover will be accounted for the people eating it as if they had eaten unleavened bread during all the seven days of that holiday.

Wir haben bereits מצה als Ausdruck des עבדות, der sozialen Unselbständigkeit begriffen; ihren Gegensatz bildet המץ; somit ist חמץ Ausdruck der sozialen Selbständigkeit. Der Peßachtag soll uns לזכרון werden, soll den Moment unseres Erstehens zur Freiheit und Selbständigkeit immer wieder aufs neue ins Bewusstsein rufen, und uns der Art und Weise nie vergessen lassen, wie wir zur Freiheit und Selbständigkeit gelangt. Der Tag darum, der uns unser Erstehen zur Freiheit und Selbständigkeit bringt, führt einen ganzen Kreis von Tagen bei uns ein, nicht mit den Zeichen der Freiheit, sondern mit Entfernung des Symbols der Selbständigkeit. שבעת ימים, einen vollen Kreis von Tagen dürfen wir uns kein Brot der Selbständigkeit erlauben, ja an dem Tage, an welchem wir selbständige Persönlichkeit und selbständiges Eigentumsgebiet erlangt — ויקחו להם — איש — לבית — an diesem Tage müssen wir aus allen unsern Eigentumsgebieten — מבתיכם — das spezifische Zeichen sozialer Selbständigkeit selbsttätig entfernen, und dürfen dann sieben Tage lang unsere Person nicht mit dem Brote der Selbständigkeit nähren, haben uns wohl zu erinnern, und es damit auszusprechen, daß im Momente unseres Entstehens zur Freiheit und Selbständigkeit, weder in unserer Person noch in unserem Machtgebiet eine Spur von Selbständigkeit, oder auch nur von der Fähigkeit, Selbständigkeit zu erringen (שאור) gewesen, wir noch in der ganzen Unfreiheit und Ohnmacht waren, und nur Gottes frei gebietende Macht uns zur Freiheit und Selbständigkeit erstehen ließ; denn wer in diesen sieben Gedächtnistagen der Erstehung zur Freiheit auch nur irgend eine die Erhaltung der Persönlichkeit merklich fördernde Größe vom Brote der Selbständigkeit isst, (אוכל כזית חמץ), der leugnet eben damit den göttlichen Ursprung unserer Erstehung zur Freiheit, der bekennt eben damit diese Erstehung als menschliche Errungenschaft und der tilgt eben damit seiner Person die Zukunft in Israel aus, indem er den Boden der jüdischen Vergangenheit verlassen. —

אך ביום הראשון תשבותו, “but on the first of these seven days you are to abstain from work (normal weekday activities)”. According to the plain meaning of the text, תשביתו plural mode of שבת, as in Genesis 2,2: ויכל אלוקים ביום השביעי, “on the seventh day G-d had completed, etc.” it is impossible to interpret that verse as G-d having been busy with creative activity. He clearly had completed that activity by the evening of the sixth day. On the seventh day He found that His work had come to an end. In our paragraph the Torah repeats the same approach. The words: you shall abstain from work on its first day, mean that you had completed your preparations for the festival before the evening of the 14th day of Nissan. As soon as that day dawned, you found yourself in a state of rest.

אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שאור EVEN THE FIRST DAY YE SHALL HAVE PUT AWAY LEAVEN — This means on the eve of the festival ye shall put it away — and that day is termed “the first (הראשון) day” because it is immediately before the seven days: We find in another passage, too, that a thing which precedes another is termed ראשון, as in (Job. 15:7) “Wast thou born ראשון Adam”, i. e. wast thou born before Adam? — But perhaps the text it referring only to the first of the seven days (i. e. the word ראשון has its ordinary meaning of first, and leavened food must be removed on the first day of the Festival and not on the preceding day)! Scripture, however, states: (Exodus 34:25) “Thou shalt not offer together with leaven [the blood of my sacrifice]” — i. e. thou shalt not slaughter the Passover sacrifice whilst leavened bread is still existent (but the Passover sacrifice was slaughtered on the afternoon of the day before the first day of the Festival; consequently all leavened food must have been removed by the hour of slaughter)(Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:15:4; cf. Pesachim 5a).

Therefore, the Torah states: “In the evening you shall eat matzos.” As Rashi explains (Pesachim 28b), the verse of “In the evening you shall eat matzos” would be superfluous, [if not to establish eating matzos on the first night as an obligation for all generations]. For it already said (v. 8), “They shall eat it [the korbon Pesach] with matzos and bitter herbs,” [which teaches us the obligation of matzoh in the time of the Beis Hamikdash]. And [as regards eating matzoh as something optional,] the first night is already included in our verse, “You must eat matzos for seven days,” since “days” includes the nights, as we learn from, “Until the twenty-first day of the month” (v. 18).

G'd commanded two kinds of מקראי קדש, "holy convocations," one on the first day, i.e. the 15th of Nissan and one on the seventh day, i.e. the 21st day of Nissan. The latter "holy convocation" was in respect of the final stage of the redemption, the drowning of the pursuing Egyptians in the sea. There were two separate miracles which needed to be commemorated then.

Die Etymologie von מצה und חמץ (siehe Kap. 2, V. 13) שׂאר dürfte mit. Sturm, verwandt sein und das die starke, gärende Bewegung bewirkende Agens ,שׂער bedeuten.

כי כל אוכל חמץ, “for anyone eating leavened matter, etc.” the Torah had to spell out the penalty for eating leavened matter during these seven days, as otherwise people would have thought that while they had to eat unleavened bread on the first night, and were expected to eat unleavened bread during the whole seven days, they could also eat leavened matter if they so chose. If they were to be allowed to do so, the impact of subsisting on unleavened bred for seven days would be lost on them. Therefore the Torah added: ולא יאכל חמץ, “nothing leavened must be eaten.”

הנפש ההיא [FOR WHOSOEVER EATETH ANYTHING LEAVENED..] THAT SOUL [SHALL BE CUT OFF] — if it eats unleavened bread when it is in its will (נפש) and with its full consciousness — this would exclude one who does so being under some external compulsion (force majeure) (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:15:5).

When [that soul] has its full faculties and knowledge. I.e., one who transgresses intentionally. The Mechilta states this clearly.

Another reason accounting for the seven days from the 15th to the 21st of Nissan being considered as a unit, i.e. שבעת ימים instead of שבעה ימים, is because G'd did not formulate the prohibition not to eat leavened bread as an outright commandent, such as "do not eat חמץ." I would have thought that a person who does not eat leavened matter during these days is neither culpable nor has he acquired special merit. The Torah therefore implies that not eating חמץ is equivalent to eating מצה and that such a person has acquired the merit of seven consecutive positive commandments (one for each day he did not eat חמץ.) [I believe the author refers to the fact that the prohibition of eating leavened matter in verse 19 is phrased impersonally, i.e. "anyone who eats leavened matter will be cut off from his people," whereas the repetition in verse 20 which addresses itself directly to the people makes no mention of seven days. If this is not the correct interpretation we must assume an uncorrected error in all the earlier manuscripts. Somewhat remarkably, the author does not comment on either verse 19 or verse 20 in this chapter. Ed.]

מישראל [THAT SOUL SHALL BE CUT OFF] FROM ISRAEL — I might understand from this that he shall be cut off from Israel and that he will be able to betake himself to another nation! Scripture therefore states in another passage, (Leviticus 22:3) “[that soul shall be cut off] from my presence” — in every place that is My territory (i. e. everywhere) (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:15:5).

The reason the Torah already mentioned seven days here is that the Israelites should be occupied with the performance of מצות right until the moment on the seventh day when the last stage of the redemption would be completed after G'd had displayed even greater miracles than previously.

There is another mystical reason for the number seven, the root of the souls of the Jewish people being equated with שבעה עינים, as we know from Zachariah 3,9, and the community of Israel is therefore frequently referred to as בת שבעה, "the seven-fold one," compare Zohar volume 3 page 6). [According to Rabbi Moshe Cordovero in his פרדס רמונים the expression שבעת ימים is a reference to the emanation בינה which presides over the 6 days preceding it, i.e. which are subordinate to it. Ed.]

מקרא קדש — The word מקרא is an infinitive and the translation is, “And on the first day there shall be “a calling it holy”, which implies: call it holy in regard to eating and drinking and raiment (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:16:1).

NO MANNER OF WORK SHALL BE DONE IN THEM. Rashi commented: “Even by the agency of others.”
I do not understand this. If these “others” are Israelites, they themselves are commanded not to work on the Festival, and I am not bound to ensure that my work is not done through them. It is only where one deceives another in a matter which is prohibited — whether it be in the deceiver’s work or in that of the deceived that the deceiver transgresses the prohibition, Before the blind do not put a stumbling-block.²⁰²Leviticus 19:14. For fuller discussion of this commandment see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 277-8. And if these “others” are non-Israelites, we are by law of the Torah not admonished at all against their working either on a Festival or on a Sabbath, except that there is a prohibition by the Rabbis if we tell him [the non-Israelite] to do the work, just as the Rabbis have said:²⁰³Shabbath 150a. “Telling a non-Israelite [to do work on the Sabbath or Festival] is prohibited by law of the Rabbis,” and this is a principle clearly established in the Gemara.²⁰⁴The Gemara (literally: “teaching”) is the collected discussions of the Rabbis centering around the Mishnah. The Mishnah and Gemara combined are known as the Talmud. After the Mishnah was compiled in the Land of Israel by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi (about the year 200 of the Common Era), the Mishnah was studied in all academies of learning in Babylon and in the Land of Israel, and finally the teachings were gathered together in the Gemara. The teachings of the Rabbis of the Land of Israel on the Mishnah were assembled in the Jerusalem Talmud, while those of Babylon were gathered together in the Babylonian Talmud. To this day, Talmudic study is devoted almost exclusively to the Babylonian Talmud. This is because the Babylonian Talmud was compiled after the Jerusalem Talmud, and therefore its decisions were reached after having taken the teachings of the Palestinian Rabbis into consideration. [How then could Rashi derive this principle of prohibiting telling a non-Israelite to do work for us on a Festival from a verse in the Torah, when it is only prohibited by Rabbinic law?]
However, I have found this text in the Mechilta:²⁰⁵The Mechilta is a Tannaitic Midrash on the Book of Exodus, beginning with Chapter 12, Verse 1. It does not, however, cover the entire Book of Exodus. The text mentioned by Ramban is found here on the verse before us. “No manner of work shall be done in them. This means that neither you nor your fellow-Israelite shall do any work, nor shall a non-Israelite do your work. You so interpret it to mean that neither you nor your fellow-Israelite shall do any work, nor shall a non-Israelite do your work, but perhaps it rather means that neither you nor your fellow-Israelite shall do any work, and the non-Israelite shall not do even his own work! Scripture therefore says, Six days shall work be done.²⁰⁶Leviticus 23:3. The verse continues, but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of work. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 330, for a detailed explanation of how the principle discussed is derived from the language of the verse. This teaches that neither you nor your fellow-Israelite shall do any work [on the Sabbath], but the non-Israelite may do his own work. These are the words of Rabbi Yashiya. Rabbi Yonathan says that there is no need for this proof. Has it not already been said, Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work?²⁰⁷Further, 20:9. Now by the syllogism of kal vachomer,²⁰⁸Literally: “a minor and major.” This is a form of reasoning by which a certain stricture applying to a minor matter is established as applying all the more to a major matter. Conversely, if a certain leniency applies to a major matter, it must apply all the more to the minor matter. It is one of the thirteen rules by which the Torah is interpreted. we proceed as follows: If on the Sabbath, in regard to which the Torah is so strict, you are not admonished against a non-Israelite’s work as you are against your own work, [it is logical to assume that on a Festival-day, in regard to which the Torah is not so strict — inasmuch as preparation of food is permitted on a Festival-day but not on the Sabbath — you are surely not admonished against a non-Israelite’s work as you are against your own work].” Thus far extends the text of this Beraitha.²⁰⁹Literally: “outside.” A teaching of the Tannaim that for some reason had not been included in the Mishnah by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. The teachings contained in the Mechilta on the Book of Exodus, Sifra on Leviticus, and Sifre on Numbers and Deuteronomy fall into the category of Beraithoth. Now surely this is but a case of a mere asmachta, [a Scriptural text used as a mere support for a Rabbinical enactment]. Since they aimed to prohibit, by law of the Rabbis, telling a non-Israelite to do our work [on a Sabbath or Festival], they used this verse as a support, [but it is actually a Rabbinical law]. It is however permissible for a non-Israelite to do his own work. And thus we incidentally learn that the Rabbinical enactment against telling a non-Israelite to do work applies only to doing our work, but one may tell him to do his own work and he may do it. So did Rashi explain it in the Gemara²⁰⁴The Gemara (literally: “teaching”) is the collected discussions of the Rabbis centering around the Mishnah. The Mishnah and Gemara combined are known as the Talmud. After the Mishnah was compiled in the Land of Israel by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi (about the year 200 of the Common Era), the Mishnah was studied in all academies of learning in Babylon and in the Land of Israel, and finally the teachings were gathered together in the Gemara. The teachings of the Rabbis of the Land of Israel on the Mishnah were assembled in the Jerusalem Talmud, while those of Babylon were gathered together in the Babylonian Talmud. To this day, Talmudic study is devoted almost exclusively to the Babylonian Talmud. This is because the Babylonian Talmud was compiled after the Jerusalem Talmud, and therefore its decisions were reached after having taken the teachings of the Palestinian Rabbis into consideration. of [Tractate] Baba Metzia.²¹⁰Baba Metzia 90a.
There in the Mechilta it further says:²¹¹Mechilta on Verse 17. “I know only that work which can be regarded as labor is prohibited. Whence do we learn that activities which are prohibited by Rabbinical enactment [are also forbidden]? Scripture therefore says, And ye shall observe this day,²¹²Verse 17. including all activities prohibited by Rabbinical law.” Now Beraithoth²⁰⁹Literally: “outside.” A teaching of the Tannaim that for some reason had not been included in the Mishnah by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. The teachings contained in the Mechilta on the Book of Exodus, Sifra on Leviticus, and Sifre on Numbers and Deuteronomy fall into the category of Beraithoth. like these, [if not accompanied by a proper interpretation], may lead one into a mistaken opinion and should not be quoted literally, for this Beraitha too apparently is a mere asmachta, and I have a correct interpretation thereof. I will yet discuss it, with the help of G-d.²¹³In Seder Emor (Leviticus 23:24). Ramban’s interpretation there of this topic has been called by the Ritba (see Vol. I, Preface, x), “a gem which has come down to us from the teachings of our master Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman.”

אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש, the permission to cook on the festivals is the reason that the work prohibition in connection with festivals is always worded as כל מלאכת עבודה לא תעשו instead of כל מלאכה לא תעשה as on the Sabbath or Day of Atonement, which means: “no manner of work must be performed, [preparation of food involving use of fire being included. Ed.]

The word מקרא is an infinitive. . . It means declaring holiness. I.e., you shall declare it holy with regard to [wearing] special clothing, eating, and drinking. But מקרא should not be explained as an adjective, meaning that the day is declared holy by Hashem. For then, it should have said היום (the day) rather than ביום (on the day).

V. 16. מקרא קדש, wie oben zu קדוש החדש bemerkt, wurden durch Bestimmung der jüdischen Gesamtheitsrepräsentanz die Moëdtage zum erneuten Zusammenfinden mit Gott geweiht. Durch diese Gesamtheitsbestimmung wird daher ein jeder Jude als Glied dieser Gesamtheit an diesen Tagen zum Heiligtume berufen, d. h. aufgefordert, sich persönlich, oder, wo dies nicht geboten war, doch im Geiste um den gemeinsamen Mittelpunkt ihrer gemeinsamen heiligen Bestimmung zu sammeln. Es ist dies die stets wiederkehrende Förderung der Verwirklichung jenes Urzweckes der ganzen Erlösung aus Ägypten: ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם והייתי לכם לאקלי׳. Während am Peßach- und Mazzafeste die Konstituierung zum Volke durch Gott, durch Peßach und Mazza immer erneut vollzogen wird, soll die Aufgabe dieses Volkes, והייתי לכם לאלקי׳, sich in allen seinen Lebensbeziehungen von Gott leiten zu lassen, durch diese periodisch immer wiederkehrende Berufung der Gesamtheit zur Bundeserneuung mit Gott und dem von Ihm gestifteten Heiligtume ihre positive Förderung finden. Alle die aus der jüdischen Geschichte hervorgegangenen Moëdtage sind daher zugleich מקראי קדש. Das Zusammenfinden mit Gott ist eben ein Zusammenfinden mit seinem Heiligtume. An diesen Tagen ist daher ein jeder Jude ein zu Gott in seinem Heiligtume "Geladener (קרוא)", und diese Idee findet auch ihren sinnlichen Ausdruck in erhöhter Erscheinung eines jeden in Kleidung, Genuss und häuslicher Umgebung. Es hat sich ein jeder an einem solchen Tage in dem eigentlichen Werte seiner Persönlichkeit zu fühlen und diesem Werte in seiner Erscheinung Ausdruck zu leihen. (כבדהו במאכל ובמשתה ובכסות נקיה, Mechiltha.)

כל מלאכה, “all manner of work;” Rashi explains the word כל, “all,” as including work performed for the Israelite in question on his behalf by others. Rabbi Moshe had difficulty with Rashi’s commentary here seeing that the Talmud in tractate Shabbat folio 150 states that the prohibition to ask gentiles to perform work for us on the Sabbath is of rabbinic origin, so how could it have been described from a verse in the Torah? We must therefore assume that what Rashi meant is that he understood the word כל as only what is known as an assmachta, a “support” from a word in the text, not a direct command. Alternately, what Rashi meant when he wrote: על ידי אחרים, “by others,” referred to other members of his household such as sons or daughters who are still minors. Although this prohibition has been spelled out in Exodus 20,10 in the Ten Commandments, this might have been understood as referring only to work performed on the Sabbath, the penalty for which is far more severe. The word כל, here therefore includes days of a festival.

מקרא קדש, “a holy convocation.” According to its translation into Aramaic, this expression means: מארע קדיש, “a festival.” On that day holy things occur.כל מלאכה לא יעשה בהם, “no creative kind of work may be performed on these days. This formulation, according toRashi, includes that no gentile perform such work on behalf of or for the benefit of a Jew. If that were correct, the Torah would have legislated for the gentiles, and this would contradict the statement in the Talmud Shabbat folio 150, that asking a gentile to perform work for you on the Sabbath is a Rabbinical and not Biblical prohibition.

לא יעשה בהם NO WORK SHALL BE DONE ON THEM, even by the agency of others (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:16:2).

SAVE THAT WHICH MAY BE EATEN BY EVERY BEING, [THAT ONLY MAY BE DONE FOR YOU]. “Even [the food eaten] by cattle [may be prepared on the Festival-day]. One might think that [food may be prepared] for non-Israelites too. Scripture therefore states, for you: [you are permitted to prepare food only for that which belongs to you and for which you have the responsibility of feeding].” Thus the language of Rashi. This too is not in accordance with the final decision of the law. Rather, [the word lachem (for you) signifies]: for you and not for non-Israelites, for you and not for cattle.

It, but not the preparations for it. . . [Rashi knows this] because it says הוא , which implies only the work itself but not the preparations. Yet it also says לכם , which implies that [work may be done for] all your needs, [including the preparations]. How is this [self-contradictory verse to be explained]? Where only the work itself is permitted, is when the preparations can be done before Yom Tov. And where even the preparations are permitted, is when the preparations cannot be done before Yom Tov.

Wie bereits im Jeschurun (V. 13 ff.) motiviert, ist ein Kreis von sieben Tagen immer ein solcher, innerhalb dessen die Gewinnung einer neuen oder zu erneuenden Stufe zum Abschluss gelangt. Wenn einem Moëd ein solcher siebentägiger Kreis geweiht ist, so sollen die mit dem ersten Tage zur neuen Belebung eintretenden Gedanken und Gesinnungen mit dem siebenten Tage die Höhe ihrer Klarheit und Kraft erreichen und mit dieser erreichten Höhe und Lebendigkeit uns dann dem täglichen Leben zur Betätigung und Erfüllung wiedergeben. Daher tritt diese "Berufung zu Gott und seinem Heiligtume" am ersten und siebenten Tage in voller Mächtigkeit hervor. Am ersten, der uns eben aus unserm täglichen Leben herausrufen und die zu belebende Idee in vollkräftiger Macht zum Bewusstsein bringen, und am siebenten, der uns diese Idee in vollendeter Aneignung für den Wiederzurücktritt ins tägliche Leben mitgeben soll. —

הוא לבדו יעשה לכם, “only it may be performed for you.” The apparently extraneous word ל-בדו is meant to remind us that the first day of Passover must not occur (i.e. The rabbis arranging the calendar must see to this) on either the second, the fourth, or the sixth day of the week. [The reason is connected to the inconvenience caused the people then with the days on which Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur would occur. Ed.]

בהם, “on them.” On the first and the seventh day of the festival, these types of work are forbidden to be performed.

הוא לבדו THAT ALONE — that and not such acts preliminary to it (to the preparation of food) as it was possible to do on the eve of the Festival (Beitzah 28b).

Even for an animal. You might think for non-Jews as well. . . You might ask: Perhaps the opposite is true, [i.e., for non-Jews it is permitted and for animals it is not]? The answer is: It is more logical to include [our domesticated] animals in the permission to do work, for they are dependent on us [i.e., we are responsible] to feed them, and to exclude non-Jews, for they are not dependent on us [i.e., we are not responsible] to feed them.

Aus diesem מקרא קדש-Begriff fließt die hier nun folgende doppelte Bestimmung des איסור מלאכת עבודה amי׳׳ט und des מלאכה .היתר אוכל נפש, wie bereits zu Bereschit 2, 1 erläutert, von מלאך, Bote, der mit der Ausführung des Gedankens eines andern Beauftragte, heißt: die Gestaltung eines Stoffes zum Träger und Ausführer unseres Gedankens, d. h. dass er fortan ein Mittel zur Verwirklichung eines bestimmten Gedankens sei. Somit ist מלאכה nicht Arbeit, sondern Werk. Was מלאך persönlich ist, ist מלאכה sachlich: ein sachlicher מלאך. Ist der Stoff ein zur menschlichen Nahrung dienender und die Gestaltung desselben eine die Genießbarkeit desselben (nach dem רשב׳׳א unmittelbar, mit dem Ausschluß der קצירה usw.) vermittelnde (wozu auch Feuerbereitung gehört): so ist es מלאכת אוכל נפש, ein die menschliche Nahrung bezweckendes Werk. Ein jedes andere Werk, mit welchem der Mensch nicht direkt für die Persönlichkeit des Menschen schafft, sondern zunächst nur im Dienste der die Erdwelt umgestaltenden, ihm übertragenen Kulturaufgabe — לעבדה ולשמרה — wirkt, heißt im Gegensatz zu מלאכת עבודה :מלאכת אוכל נפש. So heißt es sonst für die Moëdtage, mit Ausschluss des כל מלאכת עבודה לא תעשו :י׳׳כ. Hier bedarfs dieser Beifügung nicht, weil מ׳ אוכל נפש ausdrücklich in dem Verbot ausgenommen ist. Es heißt nun nicht: אך אשר יאכל לכם וגו׳ sondern אשר יאכל לכל נפש und ist darin ein Doppeltes niedergelegt. Einmal, daß nur ,דבר השוה לכל נפש. h. nur für einen solchen Genuss ein Werk zu schaffen gestattet ist, der ein dem Durchschnitt der Menschen gewöhnlicher ist, nicht aber ein solches, das nur eximierten Ständen und Gewöhnungen angehörig, ein nur erkünsteltes Bedürfnis befriedigt (Ketubot 7 a.). Ferner der (Peßach. 46 b.) behandelte Grundsatz: dass nur das Werk an sich bei Beurteilung der Strafbarkeit in Betracht kommt, ob nämlich im Momente des Schaffens es noch am Moëdtage irgend einem Menschen zum Genusse kommen kann (הואיל ומקלעי ליה אורחים). Die Bedingungen הוא לבדו und לכם beschränken die Gestattung des Genusswerkes, dass nur für jüdische Menschen ein Genusswerk und dafür auch nur solche Hilfswerke (מכשירי אוכל נפש) geschaffen werden dürfen, deren Herstellung vor י׳׳ט nicht möglich ist. Somit spricht sich das מלאכה-Verbot an den מקרא קדש-Tagen des Moëd dahin aus: Der zum Heiligtume geladene Jude wird eben damit mit seiner Tätigkeit aus dem schaffenden Dienst der Erde herausgerufen. Geladen zu עבודת ד׳ tritt er hinaus aus עבודת הארץ. In dem Umkreis seines heiligen Mittelpunktes, von dem aus erst der Impuls zu seinem ganzen Wirken ausgehen soll, soll er erst immer den Geist und die Weihe der Kraft für seinen weltgestaltenden Lebensdienst aufs neue empfangen. Das erhöhte Bewusstsein der jüdischen Persönlichkeit gehört aber mit zu dieser erneuten Weihe, und Genussbereitung für den jüdischen Menschen ist selbst mit ein Teil des durch מקרא קדש Bedingten. Und zwar wird da der jüdische Mensch in seiner Allgemeinheit דבר השוה לכל נפש begriffen, nicht eximierte Stände und Menschen sind die Geladenen, und keine sybaritischen Menschen setzt diese Ladung voraus, und es hat sich jeder Jude nicht als den allein, sondern als den in Gemeinsamkeit mit allen jüdischen Menschen Geladenen zu begreifen, und was nur noch irgend einem jüdischen Menschen am Tage des Moëd zum Genusse kommen kann (הואיל), ist kein verpöntes Schaffen.

אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש, “However (work needed) for preparing the food for the person is permitted to be performed also on those two days. The reason why the Torah had to add this line is because it had written previously that כל מלאכה, every manner of work is prohibited on these two days, it had to spell out the exception to that rule. On another occasion (Leviticus 23,7) where the festivals are discussed, the work prohibition was mentioned already with the term מלאכת עבודה, the type of menial work performed on the week days, instead of the Torah writing: כל מלאכה “all manner of work.” The Torah wishes us to know that preparing food is not considered “menial work.” The only days on which even this kind of work is forbidden are the Sabbath and Yom Kippur, (which is also called Sabbath) [and had been forbidden in the desert before the Torah had been given as soon as the manna had fallen on the sixth day. Ed.]

לכל נפש BY EVERY BEING — even by cattle. One might think that also food may be prepared for non-Israelites! Scripture however states, (in this verse) לכם (i. e. לכל נפש לכם) for every being that belongs to you (the responsibility for feeding which belongs to you) (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:16:4).

לכל נפש, “for every soul,” according to Rashi the word “for all,” includes preparing food for one’s domestic animals. When the Talmud in Beytzah folio 20, interprets the word לכם for you (pl) to include your dogs, the reason is that the dogs are able to forage for themselves and it is not making animals suffer if they are not being fed, or if food is not prepared for them on that day. Seeing that this is so, we might have thought that the domestic animals that cannot forage for themselves and depend on their owners for their food we would be able to provide for on the festivals, the Torah therefore had to write לכם, “for yourselves,” (you prepare food on the festivals but not for the gentiles (as they are able to look after themselves). Both verses are necessary as I might have thought that while it is forbidden to prepare food for a gentile independently, it is permitted a to add extra amounts for gentiles to that which you are preparing for your own family, the Torah writes לכם, i.e. only for your own family not for gentiles.

ושמרתם את המצות AND YE SHALL WATCH THE UNLEAVENED BREAD that it shall not reach the stage of becoming leavened; hence the Rabbis said, if it (the dough) is rising (a sign that the leavening process is setting in) she (the woman kneading the dough) polishes it with cold water (i. e. she slaps the dough with hands dipped in cold water). Rabbi Josiah said: Do not read “את המַּצּוֹת”, the unleavened bread, but את הַמִּצְוֹת “[ye shall watch] the commandements” — just as we may not cause the unleavened bread to become leavened by letting the dough remain in its raw state too long so we may not let the commandment become “leavened” by waiting too long before we perform it; but if it (a commandment) comes to your hand, perform it immediately (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:17:1).

ושמרתם את המצות, which are called such to reflect the speed with which they have been baked without giving the dough a chance to ferment and rise.

ושמרתם את המצות, to eat them on this day as a memorial.

ושמרתם את המצות, “guard the unleavened bread (flour) from the time it is being harvested (against it becoming moist).” You are to watch it again at the time of kneading the dough so that it will not become chametz (leavened). Our sages (Mechilta 9) read the word המצות as if it had both been spelled with the vowel patach under the letter מ, and had again been spelled with the vowel chirik under the letter מ. The message is that just as one does not let a commandment (mitzvah) become soured through procrastinating in its performance, so one must not allow the dough for the unleavened bread to stand around too long for the same reason.

If it has begun to rise, pat it with cold moisture. I.e., when dough merely begins to rise, this does not make it into chametz. Nevertheless, if the matzoh begins to rise and is on its way to become chametz, [the woman kneading it] should place her hands in cold water and smear the surface of the dough to cool it down. This is [not because of the prohibition to eat chametz, rather] because of the obligation of “You must be vigilant.”

ושמרתם את המצות, "You shall guard the unleavened breads, etc." G'd told us that just as He had carefully guarded that date and had not redeemed us a single day later than the timetable He had planned, so we should be careful not to allow the dough for the unleavened bread to remain inactive a minute too long ; otherwise it might begin to rise.

V. 17. Wie das קרבן פסח vier Tage vor dem Opfer למשמרת sein sollte und lange vor der Feier der jüdische Sinn mit dem Gedanken erfüllt sein soll, den Ausdruck seiner gänzlichen Hingebung an seinen Hirten nicht mangelhaft werden zu lassen: so sollen wir auch dem jedesmal wiederkehrenden Tage unseres Auszuges mit sorgfältiger Darstellung eines ungesäuerten Brotes entgegengehen und es in dem Sinne vor Gärung hüten, weil an diesem Tage Gott uns in die Freiheit geführt und dieser Tag daher nicht mit dem Brote der Selbständigkeit, sondern mit dem Brote der eigenen Unselbständigkeit empfangen werden will. Diese schon vor dem Feste unsere Aufmerksamkeit in Anspruch nehmende Fürsorge ist zugleich eine Fürsorge für die Erhaltung des Tages, der damit gegen Vergessenheit und Vernachlässigung gesichert ist.

ושמרתם את המצות, “you shall observe the commandment to eat unleavened bread on these days for the future.” We find this formulation being use in this sense also in Numbers 28,2 in connection with the daily communal offering where the Torah writes: תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו, ”make sure that you offer it at the time appointed for it.”

ושמרתם את היום הזה AND YE SHALL GUARD THIS DAY — against work,

כי בעצם היום הזה, “on this self-same day;” for on the same day they were all being gathered. They were not being given time to assemble over a period of a few days and nights (seeing that we are speaking of between 2-3 million people)

'כי בעצם היום הזה הוצאתי, וגו, as a result their dough did not have time enough to rise before baking, resulting in it becoming cakes of unleavened bread. It was all due to the haste of being expelled (compare verse 39)

Do not read it the matzos, but rather, the mitzvos. [Rashi offers this midrashic explanation because] according to its simple meaning, [explained in the previous entry,] the verse is out of place. It should come right after (v. 15), “You must eat matzos for seven days,” and teach that we must vigilantly guard them from becoming chametz. The Torah separated these two verses with other laws, to indicate that “You must be vigilant” is not limited to matzos. (Devek Tov)

The Torah added: "you shall observe this day" to teach that not only must we be very careful in the preparation of the unleavened bread, but we must also be very careful with our calendar calculations so as not to observe the Passover on the wrong day of the month. We cannot substitute a different day for celebrating this holiday. The reason is that what occurred happened בעצם i.e. this word is to be read in both directions. The careful watch over the dough and the careful observance of the correct date are both because of what occurred on that very day. We are to emulate what G'd did at that time to the best of our ability.

לדרתיכם חקת עולם THROUGHOUT YOUR GENERATIONS, AN ORDINANCE FOR EVER — Because the expressions, “[throughout your] generations”, and “an ordinance for ever” have not been mentioned in connection with the prohibition of work but only in reference to the celebration of the Festival (v. 14), it is therefore repeated here in order that you should not say: the prohibition, (v. 16) “no work shall be done”, was not spoken for future generations but for that generation alone to whom the words were addressed.

הוצאתי את צבאותיכם, the entire community of Israel including their flocks and herds all simultaneously.

עד יום האחד ועשרים UNTIL THE TWENTY-FIRST DAY — Why is this stated? Has it not already been stated, (v. 15) “Seven days [shall ye eat unleavened bread]” (beginning on the fifteenth day, as Rashi shows in his comment on v. 14 and therefore terminating on the twenty-first)? The answer is: Since it is said in that verse, “[seven] days [shalt thou eat unleavened bread]”, we may ask whence do we derive that the prohibition of eating unleavened bread extends also to the nights of these seven days? Scripture therefore states here, “[Ye shall eat unleavened bread] until the twenty-first-day in the evening” (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:18).

Why is this said. . . You might ask: Does this verse not imply that eating matzoh is obligatory for all seven days, yet before, Rashi clearly explained that for all seven days it is optional? The answer is: Rashi indeed said before that eating matzoh is optional, as that was the verse’s subject. But here, the subject is the removal of leaven from the home, as is seen in the following verse, “For seven days no leaven may be found in your homes.” And when Rashi mentioned “seven days,” he was not referring to: “You must eat matzos for seven days” (v. 15), rather he was referring to: “For seven days no leaven may be found” (v. 19). And if it said only, “Seven days no leaven may be found,” I might think that this applies only during the daytime, but not at night. (See Re”m for further elaboration.)

(Exodus 12:18) "On the first day, on the fourteenth day": Scripture made it mandatory (to eat matzoh on the first night). "until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening." What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 18) "Seven days shall you eat matzoth," I would know only of the days. Whence would I derive (the same for) the nights? It is, therefore, written "until the twenty-first day," to include the nights.

V. 18. Während, wie zu V. 15 bemerkt, der Genuss der Mazzoth an den übrigen Tagen nicht obligat ist und nur den Genuss gegorenen Brotes ausschließt, ist der Mazzagenuss an diesem Abend positive Pflicht, und zwar soll an diesem Abend ein absichtlich für diesen Zweck vor Gärung geschütztes Brot (משתמרת לשם מצה), wie im vorhergehenden Verse ausgesprochen, gegessen werden. (חסר מצת: vielleicht, weil ein כזית als Symbol genügt). Die Negation des Gegorenen während der sieben Tage des Mazzafestes entfernt jeden Gedanken selbständigen menschlichen Mitwirkens aus der Vorstellung unserer Erstehung zur Freiheit. Der positive Genuss der Mazza beim Antritt der Erlösungsfeier lässt uns den Gedanken der durch Gott gewonnenen sozialen Freiheit mit dem Gedanken der Gotteshörigkeit verbinden, durch welche und für welche wir frei geworden. Gott gegenüber steht das freigewordene Israel immer mit der Mazza in Händen, aus Menschendienst sind wir in den Dienst Gottes getreten; vom Altare in Gottes Heiligtum blieb für immer aller Sauerteig ferne (Wajikra 2, 11). Durch diese Sätze ist das Mazzagebot und das Chamezverbot, auch losgetrennt von dem Peßachopfer, für alle Zeit zur Pflicht gemacht.

עד יום עשרים ואחד, “until (incl.) the twenty first day (of the month).” Rashi asks why the Torah had to spell this out seeing we can count to seven? He answers that seeing the Torah had previously written the word: ימים, “days.” I might have thought that only the daylight hours are meant. By telling us until which date of the month this commandment is applicable, I know that it also applies during the nights. Where do we have another example of the same formulation being used to make that point? Answer: in verse 1 in our chapter. If we are to answer seeing that we are left with the question that what Rashi answered should already have been written on that verse, one might venture the thought that there are commandments for which a reward is promised if it is performed, and one is punished for the mere failure to perform the commandment. An example would be the failure to eat matzah on the first night of Passover. On the other hand, no penalty is incurred if one does not eat any more matzah on the remaining days of the festival. If one eats matzah every day of the festival, although one could have avoided it without penalty, one still receives full credit for observing what the Torah had formulated as a commandment. This is so even if one ate the matzah only on the seven nights of the festival. However, if one ate matzah during the last eight or nine days of the month of Nissan, one does not accumulate additional credit as the period for which one qualified had concluded on the twenty first day of Nissan. To make this abundantly clear, the Torah wrote:בראשון בארבעה עשר יום לחודש בערב תאכלו מצות עד יום האחד ועשרים יום לחודש בערב, “On the first day, the fourteenth of the month in the evening until the twenty first day of the month in the evening you are to eat matzot.”

לא ימצא בבתיכם NO LEAVEN SHALL BE FOUND IN YOUR HOUSES — Whence may we derive that this applies also to the external properties which belong to you? From what Scripture states, (Exodus 13:7) “[Neither shall leaven be seen with thee] in all thy boundaries”. If this be so, why then need Scripture specify here “in your houses” (since this term is comprised in the more general term “in all thy boundaries”)? It is for the purpose of defining the latter term through the former. How is it the case of thy house? Everything contained in it is under thy control! So, too, the term “[leaven in all] your boundaries” means only such leaven as is in your boundaries and under your control, thereby excluding such leaven belonging to a non-Israelite as is deposited with an Israelite but for which he has accepted no responsibility (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:19:2).

NO LEAVEN SHALL BE FOUND IN YOUR HOMES. “Whence do we know that this applies also to the borders? Scripture therefore says, Neither shall there be leaven seen with thee, in all thy borders.²¹⁴Further, 13:7. The term “our borders” is to be understood as “our external properties” besides our homes. Why then need Scripture say here, in all your homes, [since these are already included in the comprehensive term of borders]? It is to teach us that just as what is in your home is under your control, so also what is in thy borders must be under your control. Thus there is excluded [from this prohibition] leavened bread actually owned by a non-Israelite but deposited with an Israelite for which the latter has accepted no responsibility.” This is the language of Rashi.
I do not find it correct. The purport of the term “under your control” is not to exclude leavened bread owned by a non-Israelite [which is deposited with an Israelite], since that is indeed under the Israelite’s control. Homes and borders are both alike in this respect since both of them are under his control and the leavened bread belongs to others.²¹⁵In other words, what new principle could there be derived by this comparison, which Rashi mentioned, of the border to the home, since there is no difference between them regarding a case of this kind? Moreover, the case of leavened bread owned by a non-Israelite [and deposited with an Israelite for which the Israelite] has accepted no responsibility, is not covered by this analogy, since the term “home” indicates permission no more than does the term “border.” Instead, the term “home” implies prohibition, as is obvious from the language of this verse before us, it shall not be found in your homes [under any circumstance]. We derive the permission from the expression, Neither shall there be seen leaven with thee,²¹⁴Further, 13:7. The term “our borders” is to be understood as “our external properties” besides our homes. [i.e., that which actually belongs to you,²¹⁶And not, as Rashi explained it, that the permission for this case, i.e., of leavened bread owned by a non-Israelite and deposited with an Israelite for which the Israelite assumed no responsibility — is derived from the expression “in your homes” in the verse before us. as the Rabbis commented upon it]: “You may not see [leaven or leavened bread] which is yours, but you may see that of others and that which belongs to the Temple-treasury. I know only that this principle applies to the borders, [since the expression with thee is stated in connection with the borders, as it says, Neither shall there be leaven seen ‘with thee’ in all ‘thy borders’]. Whence do I know this applies also to the homes? Scripture therefore uses the identical word s’or (leaven) in the case of both home and border,”²¹⁷This principle of interpretation is known as gzeirah shavah, “an equal expression.” Where a verbal congruity appears between two laws in the text of the Torah, it indicates that a law mentioned in one case applies equally to the other. In the case before us, the word s’or (leaven) appears here in Verse 19 where “home” is mentioned, and is also mentioned further, 13:7, where the border is mentioned. Now in the case of the border, the Torah clearly stated that the prohibition applies only where it actually belongs to the owner. On the strength of the gzeirah shavah, the same law applies to the case of the home. The gzeirah shavah is one of the thirteen rules by which the Torah is interpreted. One cannot establish, though, an analogy from congruent expressions of one’s own accord; the application of the similarity of expression must be authorized by tradition. as is explained at the beginning of Tractate Pesachim.²¹⁸Pesachim 5b.
But this Midrash [mentioned by Rashi], which explains, “just as what is in your home is under your control, so also what is in thy borders must be under your control,” is only intended to exclude [from this prohibition] an Israelite’s leavened bread which is deposited with a non-Israelite. And thus it is taught in the Mechilta:²¹⁹Mechilta on the verse before us. “In your homes. Why is this said? Because it is stated, in all thy borders,²¹⁴Further, 13:7. The term “our borders” is to be understood as “our external properties” besides our homes. which I might understand literally, [i.e., that we are not to leave our leavened bread in all our borders even if it is deposited with a non-Israelite]. Scripture therefore says, in your homes; just as what is in your home is under your control, so also what is in thy border must be under your control. Thus there is excluded [from this prohibition] an Israelite’s leavened bread which he deposited with a non-Israelite. Even though the Israelite may destroy it, he could not do so because he does not have complete control over it. [Also] excluded [from this prohibition] is the leavened bread of a non-Israelite which is deposited with an Israelite, and [an Israelite’s] leavened bread buried under debris, for although it is under the control of the Israelite [or in his territory], he has not the right to destroy it, [or in the case of debris, he does not have the physical ability of actually destroying it], etc.”
The explanation of this Mechilta is as follows: One might have thought that the intent of the verse, Neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy borders, is to prohibit the leaving of our leavened bread in all our borders, even in the house of a non-Israelite. Therefore the Torah wrote in your homes to exclude [from this prohibition] the house of a non-Israelite. Thus we learn from this Beraitha²⁰⁹Literally: “outside.” A teaching of the Tannaim that for some reason had not been included in the Mishnah by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. The teachings contained in the Mechilta on the Book of Exodus, Sifra on Leviticus, and Sifre on Numbers and Deuteronomy fall into the category of Beraithoth. that by law of the Torah we are admonished only against keeping our leavened bread under our control, whether it be in our homes or in our borders. But if we have deposited it with a non-Israelite in his home, we do not transgress [the two prohibitions], Neither shall there be leaven seen with thee,²¹⁴Further, 13:7. The term “our borders” is to be understood as “our external properties” besides our homes. and There shall no leaven be found in your homes.²²⁰Verse 19 before us. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 197-8, where Rambam states that these are counted as two separate commandments. And it must necessarily be so. If you do not say thus, then it should follow that for his own leavened bread, an Israelite will transgress the commandments even if he deposited it with a non-Israelite who is beyond the sea, while for a non-Israelite’s leavened bread, even though it be in the Israelite’s home, the Israelite does not violate the prohibitions. If that is the case, why does Scripture say [in one place], in your homes, and in another, in thy borders, when there is no difference between our homes and our borders and the homes and borders of the non-Israelites! Instead, we must conclude that by law of the Torah, we are admonished [against keeping and seeing leaven or leavened bread] only when it is in our control.²²¹Hence by law of the Torah, an Israelite who deposited his leavened bread with a non-Israelite is not dutybound to destroy it. It is by law of the Rabbis, Ramban continues, that he is bound to destroy it in that case. But by enactment of the Sofrim, [the Rabbis of the pre-tannaitic period beginning with Ezra], we are obligated to destroy our leavened bread under all circumstances.
Accordingly, the Rabbis have said in the Gemara:²²²Pesachim 6a. See above, Note 204, for the word Gemara. “If the Israelite singled out a room [to the non-Israelite and said to him, ‘This corner is for you to keep your leavened bread’], the Israelite does not violate [the prohibitions against keeping or seeing leavened bread in his possession].” This teaches us that for a non-Israelite’s leavened bread for which the Israelite has accepted responsibility, even though it be deemed as belonging to the Israelite, it is forbidden only when it is under the control of the Israelite, but if it be under the control of the non-Israelite, it is permissible. [In this case where the Israelite singled out a room for him to keep his leavened bread, “it is as if the Israelite assumed responsibility for the non-Israelite’s leavened bread which is in the non-Israelite’s home”], and even by law of the Rabbis, nothing was decreed against it. The Rabbi [Rashi], however, is not of this opinion in his commentary on the Gemara Pesachim.²²³In his commentary (Pesachim 6 b), Rashi explains that the case of the Israelite who singled out a room for the non-Israelite to keep his leavened bread, applies only if the Israelite did not assume responsibility. If he assumed responsibility for it, he transgresses the prohibitions entailed. Ramban’s position that the above case applies even if the Israelite assumed responsibility for the non-Israelite’s leavened bread, coincides with that of Rabbeinu Tam, mentioned in Tosafoth there.
It is this principle which is the purport of the Beraitha²⁰⁹Literally: “outside.” A teaching of the Tannaim that for some reason had not been included in the Mishnah by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. The teachings contained in the Mechilta on the Book of Exodus, Sifra on Leviticus, and Sifre on Numbers and Deuteronomy fall into the category of Beraithoth. we have cited: “Thus there is excluded [from this prohibition] leavened bread owned by a non-Israelite which is deposited with an Israelite.” [It is excluded] on account of the analogy between the homes and the borders:²²⁴See Note 217 above. And not, as Rashi explained, that it is derived from the expression in your homes, as explained above. just as in the case of the borders it is permissible because it says with thee, meaning, “you may not see [leaven or leavened bread] which is yours, but you may see that of others and that which belongs to the Temple-treasury,” so too in the case of the home it is also permissible. Excluded also is the case of an Israelite’s leavened bread buried under great debris where it is impossible for him to clear away the ruin, and it is lost to him and everyone. It is permissible since it is no longer called “his.”

From where do we know [that this applies] to [your properties] outside your house? “Your boundaries” (v. 13:7) comes [to extend the prohibition to areas] outside the house, such as in the fields and vineyards, [although houses are included in “your boundaries”].

V. 19 u. 20. Siehe zu V. 15. מחמצת: Hiphilform von חמץ. Wie in den Formen מקרין מפריס (Ps. 69, 32) der Hiphil das Darbieten eines Objektes bedeutet, Horn und Klaue zeigen, ebenso: האדים ,הלבין, die weiße Farbe, die rote Farbe dem Auge darbieten, so heißt auch מהמצת dasjenige, was nicht selbst חמץ ist, doch חמץ in konkreter Erkennbarkeit darbietet, somit ein Stoff, in welchen חמץ mit hervortretender Massenhaftigkeit gemischt ist. Es ist dies תערוכת המץ כזית בכדי אכילת פרס; eine solche Mischung in dem ungemischten Chamez gleich mit כרת verpönt. כל מחמצת erweitert den Begriff und verbietet eine jede Mischung, die das darin enthaltene Chamez auch nur für den Geschmack erkennbar enthält, תערובת חמץ טעמו ולא ממשו. Eben durch diese Ausdehnung des חמץ-Verbotes wird unsere Gewissenhaftigkeit die ganze Dauer des Mazzafestes wach gehalten und damit dieses Grundsymbol unseres nur von Gott getragenen nationalen Daseins in seiner ganzen Bedeutsamkeit unserm Innern zur völligen Einprägung dargeboten. Es ist aber das חמץ während der Dauer unseres Erlösungsfestes aus unserm Bereiche (לא ימצא), aus unserer Benutzung (הנאה), aus unserer Nahrung (אכילה), verwiesen, und sind damit wieder jene drei Seiten des ägyptischen Galut gezeichnet, das uns durch גרות besitzlos, durch עבדות machtlos in Verwendung unserer Kräfte und Mittel, und durch ענוי freudelos im Genusse unseres Daseins sein ließ. Wir hatten keine Selbständigkeit, (kein חמץ) hinsichtlich des Besitzes (לא ימצא), des Gebrauches (הנאה) und des Genusses (בכל מושבתיכם — .(אכילה, während das ganze Jahr hindurch nur vom Altar und den vom Altar stammenden Genüssen חמץ entfernt war, und nur das auf den Altar gebrachte und von ihm stammende Brot Mazza sein musste, tritt am Mazzafeste dieses Symbol in alle unsere Wohnstätten ein, uns eben in unserem ganzen bürgerlichen Dasein und mit demselben unsere Unselbständigkeit vor Gott zu vergegenwärtigen, und darum taugte zu der Mizwamazza am Peßachabende nur מצה הנאכלת בכל מושבות (siehe Peßachim 36 a).

שבעת ימים שאור לא ימצא בבתיכם, “for seven days no leaven shall be found in your homes. This verse is meant to enlighten us about the proper meaning of the words in verseביום הראשון תשביתו שאור מבתיכם :15If translated literally, it would mean: “on the first day you are to get rid and destroy all the leaven that you own from your houses.” However, it is clear that this must occur not on the first day of Passover but before, at least on the day before at noon, after which the blood of the sacrifice called Passover can be offered on the altar. The seven days following that day are equal in all respect concerning the laws governing leaven, in that no leaven must be capable of being found in a Jew’s house (if it is his). It had to be gotten rid off or destroyed already on the day prior to the 15th of Nissan. Some commentators therefore understand the plain meaning of the text as: “you do not need to have leaven on hand to facilitate the rising of your dough already when you prepare your dough which is to be eaten on the first night of the festival.” This precaution is necessary, as the penalty for eating leavened products is so severe, i.e. karet, being cut off from your people spiritually, permanently as stated in verse 19. The precaution therefore is to remove the leaven prior to, not only at or after the onset of the festival. You may not even eat a product which contains a mixture of leavened and unleavened dough.

כי כל אכל מחמצת FOR WHOSOEVER EATETH THAT WHICH LEAVENETH — The purpose of this statement is to mention the punishment of excision for eating שאור (a synonym for מחמצת, which is something that causes the leavening process to set in, such as yeast etc., whilst חמץ denotes food which has become leavened). But has not Scripture already mentioned this punishment for eating leavened food (v. 15)? But the mention of this punishment is repeated here in connection with leaven מחמצת, in order that you should not argue as follows: For eating leavened food — a thing which is fitted to be eaten — it mentions this punishment, but if one eats leaven itself — which is something not fitted to be eaten — one should not be punished for it. If, however, it had mentioned the punishment for eating leaven but had not mentioned the punishment for eating leavened food, I might have said: For eating leaven — a thing which has the property of making other things leavened — it mentions the punishment, but if one eats leavened food — which is something that does not possess the property of making other things leavened — one should not be punished for it; therefore they are both mentioned (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:19:3; cf. Beitzah 7b).

A non-Jew’s chametz which is by a Jew. . . I.e., the Jew does not transgress the prohibition of having chametz. Also the prohibition of “your boundaries” (v. 13:7) applies only when you have rights to the chametz, as is learned from “in your homes.” This is because “in your homes” would otherwise be superfluous, [since homes are included in “your boundaries”]. Thus, “in your homes” comes to exclude [cases where the Jew has no rights to the chametz, such as] a non-Jew’s chametz stored by a Jew.

בגר ובאזרח הארץ WHETHER HE BE A STRANGER OR A NATIVE OF THE LAND — Because the miracle of the Exodus was performed for Israel it is necessary expressly to include the stranger who has become an Israelite in this command (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:19:4).

But has it not already provided for the kares punishment regarding chametz?! Rashi is saying that the prohibition on שאור may be derived through a fortiori reasoning, as follows: חמץ is not so strongly leavened that it can ferment other dough. Nevertheless, one who eats it is liable for kares. Then regarding שאור , which is strongly leavened, all the more so that one who eats it should be liable for kares.

מחמצת לא תאכלו THAT WHICH LEAVENETH YE SHALL NOT EAT — Here we have the prohibition regarding eating שאור (that which causes food to become leavened).

ANYTHING THAT IS LEAVENED YE SHALL NOT EAT. “This includes food with which leaven is mixed.” Thus the language of Rashi.
This too is not in accordance with the final decision of the law, for the adopted opinion is like that of the Sages who say that the penalty incurred for eating leavened food is extinction, but for food with an admixture of leaven, there is no specific verse that includes it, [although it is nevertheless forbidden].²²⁵Why then did Rashi interpret the verse in accordance with the opinion of a single Sage — Rabbi Eliezer — when the Sages who are the majority differ with him? Commentators, however, have shown that the accepted final decision of the law in this case is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Maimonides and other scholars have all accepted the decision of Rabbi Eliezer. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 333.

בכל מושבותיכם תאכלו מצות, even outside the city of Jerusalem, although the Passover itself must not be slaughtered outside Jerusalem.

This is the warning against the eating of yeast. For the punishment was already learned from (v. 19), “Whoever eats chametz that soul shall be cut off. . ..”

בכל מושבותיכם תאכלו מצות, “you are to eatunleavened bread in all of your dwellings.” The reason why the Torah uses the expression: בכל מושבותיכם, “wherever you will be at home,” is because this commandment applies equally in the land of Israel and outside of it. This is distinct from eating of the Passover lamb, a law which can be fulfilled only in the land of Israel and at a time when offerings can be offered in the Temple or at least on the Temple Mount.

כל מחמצת [YE SHALL NOT EAT] ANYTHING THAT LEAVENETH — The use of the word כל, anything (even in the smallest degree), is intended to include food with which it (שאור) is mixed (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:20:1).

Includes its mixture. Re”m discussed Rashi’s comment at length and found difficulty with it. But see Maseches Chulin 43a, and the commentary of Rashi and Tosafos there (beginning with והא אמר רבי יוחנן ), discussing the Mishnah of אלו כשרות . Re”m found difficulty with Rashi only because he overlooked this. (Nachalas Yaakov)

בכל מושבתיכם תאכלו מצות IN ALL YOUR HABITATIONS SHALL YE EAT UNLEAVENED BREAD — This statement is intended to teach that it (the unleavened bread which you must eat on the first night of Passover) must be fitted to be eaten in all your habitations, thus excluding leavened bread which forms “the second tithe” and the unleavened meal cakes brought with the thanksgiving offering (which might be eaten only within the walls of Jerusalem) (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:20:2).

This comes to teach. . . Rashi is answering the question: It is obvious [that the mitzvah of matzoh applies in all places], for matzoh is an obligation upon the person, [not upon the land], and therefore applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside it. Rashi answers: “This comes to teach. . .”

This excludes Maaser Sheni and the breads of the thanksgiving korbon. Rashi is saying that even if these were eaten in Jerusalem one cannot fulfill his obligation of eating matzoh — since they may not be eaten “in all your dwellings.”

And thus you should eat it: your loins girded, your shoes on your feet... and your staff in your hand, and you should eat it in haste... and that day will be a remembrance for you... seven days... One should pay attention to the reason for this mitzvah, why the eating should be hasty specifically. For wasn't the eating of the paschal lamb before midnight, and they couldn't leave their homes until the morning? We can consider further based on what is said in the Haggadah - "this matzah that we eat, what is it for? For there was not enough... as it is said... 'and also they had not prepared any provisions for the way' (Shemot 12:39)". And this reason still needs explanation. It's possible to explain according to what we said earlier, regarding the verse "from every tree of the garden you may eat, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat..." (Bereishit 2:16) And our rabbis were devided on which tree Adam haRishon ate. One could have asked, how did Adam know which tree was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, if not for the fact that Hashem Yitbarach showed him it. And this isn't according to the sense of the verse, but it's possible to say that the principal of God's commandment is not to be drawn after his cravings to eat food, since it is delicious and good to look at. And the thorn in its lowliness, this only will be your food to sustain your body alone. Since God has not separated in Their eyes between that which is good to look at and that which is not - rather, one's eating should be to satiate themself so they can be established for their service of their Creator. And this is the statement of the verse "from every tree of the garden you may surely eat..." meaning, you are permitted to eat from all of them, just so long as there is no difference in your eyes between eating from this one because you crave it since it is delicious, or the thorn in its lowliness which is disgusting. This difference is forbidden to you, and this is "from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" you shall not eat - it wishes to say that you shouldn't distinguish in your eating between this which is tasty and the thorn which is evil in your eyes. And we can say that "the tree of knowledge" isn't a specific tree, but rather Adam was commanded equally regarding all of them not to distinguish between good and evil with regard to his appetites. And our rabbis of blessed memory were divided on which species he craved with a bodily craving. And for this reason our fathers went down to Egypt, to purify their material selves and to break their appetites by means of the yoke of subjugation, in order to right the sin of Adam haRishon. And for this, we are commanded to eat on Pesach bread of affliction, which is tasteless and without salt or preparation. This is for this intention: to teach that a person should not be drawn after human pleasures, which are illusory. And for this reason the matzah is called 'bread of affliction/poverty' - because the poor person isn't able to choose food that they crave or enjoy, and is forced to eat whatever comes to their hands even if it isn't delicious. So too with us: we eat matzah from dough with no seasonings. It would be the same to us if it were sweet, but there isn't sweetness - it's just to sustain ourselves to serve God and to sanctify ourselves by means of eating matzah for seven days. These correspond to seventy years, a lifespan, to show us that by means of from the need to cast away from opposite all worldly delights and from one's desires. [?] And this is alluded to in the statement "this matzah which we eat, why?... 'for they did not have enough... and they had also not prepared provisions...'". Meaning, we receive instruction from our ancestors who were on this level, that they were not drawn after their cravings to prepare flavourful and pleasant provisions. They ate at their exodus only cakes of matzah, without flavour. So we act according to their deeds. And the explanation of his words is, "this matzah that we eat", meaning, our intent when we eat matzah and say "this matzah which we eat, why?... 'for they did not have enough... and they had also not prepared provisions...'" is that we should intend that, just as our ancestors cast away their bodily cravings, so too we must trend [?] to act thus: by means of eating the matzah, we accustom ourselves to purify our material selves and to break the strength of this craving. And it is for this reason that Hashem Yitbarach commanded us to eat the paschal lamb "in haste" - it's known that even if the food is tasty, hasty eating won't allow one to derive pleasure in the same way as slower eating at a set table. To teach us again, as I have explained, that one should not eat to fulfil their cravings - only in order to sustain life in order to serve Hashem Yitbarach. And it finishes and says, "This day will be a remembrance for you" (Shemot 12:14) - meaning, you should remember this forever, why we're commanded to eat the paschal lamb in haste. For this is to break the strength of craving, and also "seven days matzot you shall eat" (ibid.) - that this should be on your heart forever.

משכו DRAW OUT — He who has sheep let him draw one out from his own,

THEN MOSES CALLED FOR ALL THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, AND SAID UNTO THEM: DRAW OUT, AND TAKE YOU LAMBS ACCORDING TO YOUR FAMILIES AND SLAUGHTER THE PASSOVER. This chapter shortens the account of how the laws which G-d had commanded Moses, as stated in the section above, [were communicated by him to Israel], as it is self-understood that Moses related all the laws to Israel in detail and taught them the matter involved, it being included in the verse, As the Eternal hath commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.²²⁶Verse 28. Instead, Scripture mentioned this section in a general way, saying that Moses called for all the elders of Israel and they gathered together to him all the people. Then they [the elders]²²⁷So explained later on in the text, and so clearly rendered in the Tur: “Moses called for all the elders of Israel and they gathered together to him all the people, and then they themselves said to the whole congregation of Israel, Draw out, and take you lambs, etc.” said to the whole congregation of Israel, “Draw out the sheep from the flock to your homes, and keep it there from the tenth day of the month [till the fourteenth, when it is to be slaughtered as the Passover-offering].”
It is possible that Scripture used the word, mishchu (draw out), because their sheep were very far from them in the land of Goshen, for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.²²⁸Genesis 46:34. It said, and take you, meaning “take the lambs according to your families,” every man a lamb, according to their fathers’ houses,²²⁹Above, Verse 3. and slaughter the Passover lamb²³⁰Verse 21 before us. at eventide,²³¹Above, Verse 6. all in accordance with what has been explained above concerning this commandment.
Now we read in the Mechilta:²³²Mechilta on the verse before us. See above, Note 205. “Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel. This teaches us that he constituted them a court.²³³The teaching is derived from the word z’keinim (the elders), “and zakein denotes only one who has acquired wisdom” (Kiddushin 32 b). See Ramban above, Verse 2, that “elders” are needed for the Sanctification of the New Moon, as mentioned in the section above, and hence Moses constituted them a court. And he said unto them. The word came from the mouth of Moses, saying it to all Israel.²³⁴According to this opinion of Rabbi Yashiya, the court of the elders was constituted only for the Sanctification of the New Moon, and then after the elders gathered the people by command of Moses, he himself said to the people, Draw out, etc. These are the words of Rabbi Yashiya. Rabbi Yonathan says that the word came out from the mouth of Moses saying it to the elders, and the elders saying it to all Israel.” Thus according to Rabbi Yashiya, the expression, Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, means that he told them to gather together to him all the people, [and he himself told the people all the laws of the Passover mentioned above], as I have explained. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yonathan, the elders related it to the assembly. Accordingly, the verse stating, Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel,²³⁵Above, Verse 3. refers [not to Moses and Aaron mentioned in the two verses there above, but] to the elders that were assembled before [Moses and Aaron, and they — the elders — spoke to the congregation], as is also the purport of the verse, Then it shall be, if it be done in error by ‘the eyes of the congregation,’²³⁶Numbers 15:24. [which is a reference to the elders of the congregation, members of the Court].

ויקרא משה לכל זקני ישראל, Moses called all the elders of Israel, etc. Although G'd had told Moses to speak to the whole community of Israel we must interpret this commandment as similar to Leviticus 4,13 where the Torah speaks of: "if the whole community of Isael committed an unintentional sin, etc." In that instance the Torah also refers to the elders, as Torat Kohanim explains on that verse. The words following, i.e. ויאמר אליהם, may mean that Moses addressed the rest of the people just as became customary with informing the people of any of the other commandments of the Torah.

למשפחותיכם, a variation of verse 3 where the wording had been לבית אבות.

ויקרא משה לכל זקני ישראל, “Moses called to all the elders of Israel.” This paragraph is a summary, similar to when G’d commanded Moses earlier, saying only כאשר צוה ה' את משה כן עשו, ”the Israelites did in conformity with all that G’d commanded to Moses.” The method that Moses followed in relaying these commands to the people was by telling them details of the legislation before summing it up in general terms. The Torah, reverting to the general terms, כלל, describes Moses calling together the elders who in turn assembled the people at large, telling them משכו וקחו לכם צאן , “draw forth or buy for yourselves a sheep, etc.” It is quite possible that the formulation used was due to the fact that the livestock of the Israelites was quite a distance away from them in the province of Goshen. They were forced to leave their livestock there as sheep, being something repulsive, abominable to the Egyptians, they would not want to antagonize the Egyptians by having their sheep where the Egyptians would see them. The whole paragraph was read to the people, and additional details about what to do with these animals’ blood were added, including the brush to use with which to smear the blood on the doorposts and lintels of their dwellings. They were also warned not to leave their houses during the time that this killing of the firstborn would take place, so as to avoid becoming victims themselves.

Whoever owns lambs shall draw one of his own. Why does Rashi not explain this as he did above (v. 6), “Withdraw your hands from idol worship”? The answer is: Above, Rashi was not explaining the meaning of the verse, but the reason for the mitzvah. For that, a midrashic explanation is sufficient. But here Rashi is explaining the meaning of the verse; thus he offers its simple meaning (Re”m)

V. 21. משכו וקחו וגו׳. "Ziehet aus allen seinen bisherigen und künftig möglichen Bestimmungen und gebet ihm die Bestimmung, Opferausdruck für eure Familien zu werden." Durch משכו und קחו sind die beiden Momente bezeichnet, die den Begriff der Heiligung und Weihe ausmachen. הפסה setzt voraus, dass dem Volke bereits dieser Begriff bekannt, ihm somit bereits das ganze Peßach und Mazzagesetz, wie es vorgehend steht, kund gegeben war. Möglich und wahrscheinlich wurden diese Worte am 10. Nissan, an dem Tage gesprochen, an welchem nun die bereits am ersten erteilte Aufgabe: ויקחו להם וגו׳ in Erfüllung zu bringen war.

ויקרא משה לכל זקני ישראל, Moses called upon all the elders of Israel;” previously the Torah had phrased this as: דברו אל כל עדת ישראל, “speak to the whole congregation of Israel” (verse 3) Why the difference? The commandment to own or partly own the lamb destined to become the Passover offering applied equally to every Israelite. The commandment to slaughter this animal applied only to the elders. Ordinary people, i.e. laymen, were not to perform the act of slaughtering for fear that they might disqualify the animal through an error on their part.!

וקחו OR TAKE, and he who has no sheep let him purchase one in the market (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:21:2).

Alternatively, Moses only told the elders and they in turn told the people. In that event this commandment would be different from all the other commandments in the Torah. The reason that the Israelites were not addressed by Moses directly could be that they had not yet entered the holy covenant, had not yet been circumcised. As a result they needed an additional intermediary. The elders had their own method of prevailing on the people to accept this legislation.

This section adds an explanation to the putting of the blood [of the Passover-offering, mentioned above in Verse 7], i.e., that it be done with a bunch of hyssop and that it be dipped in the blood that is in the basin,²³⁷Verse 22. which was not explicitly mentioned above but in a general way, And they shall take of the blood, etc.²³⁸Above, Verse 7. It teaches us that every undefined “taking” prescribed in the Torah must be with “a bunch,”²³⁹Thus, in the case of the Red Heifer where the verse says, And the priest shall take cedar-wood, and hyssop, and scarlet (Numbers 19:6) it means a bunch of cedar-wood and hyssop tied with scarlet (Parah 3:10). and that all “taking” of the blood [prescribed in the Torah] must be in a vessel,²⁴⁰Thus, when Scripture says, And the priest that is anointed shall take of the blood (Leviticus 4:5), it means of the blood that is in the vessel. as our Rabbis have explained.²⁴¹Mechilta here on the matter of “the bunch”. Concerning the principle of taking the blood in a vessel, I have not found a source deriving it from the verse before us. In Zebachim 97 b, it is derived from the verse, And he [Moses] put it in basins (further, 24:6).
And He further explained to them in this section, and none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning,²³⁷Verse 22. for on account of it they were commanded to put the blood [of the Passover-offering] upon the lintel so that they would be protected there, just as He said, and there shall be no plague upon you to destroy you.²⁴²Above, Verse 13.
Now Rashi commented: “And none of you shall go out. This teaches us that once permission is given to the destroying angel, he does not discriminate between righteous and wicked, and night-time is the domain of the destroying messengers, as it is said, Thou makest darkness, and it is night, wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth.”²⁴³Psalms 104:20.
I did not understand that which Rashi said, “and night-time is the domain of the destroying messengers, as it is said, … wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth.”²⁴³Psalms 104:20. Is a person forbidden on any night to go out of the door of his house until the morning, on the authority of this verse? Rather, Rashi should have said, “for on that night permission to destroy was given the angel of destruction, and therefore He warned them against it.” But the Rabbi [Rashi] did not find it correct to say so since the Holy One, blessed be He, in His Presence and in His glory, was the One who smote [the first-born].²⁴⁴Hence there was nothing unique about this night as far as the destroying angel was concerned since he had no special function that night, and yet the Israelites were warned against going out of the door of their homes until the morning! It must necessarily be that night-time is the domain of the destroying messengers. Now on every other night, if a person goes out and he is harmed by them, the profaning of G-d’s Name is not entailed. But on the night of Passover, if an Israelite were to be harmed, the Egyptians would say that Moses was not a true prophet, and G-d’s Name would be profaned. Hence they were forbidden to go out from their homes.
This subject is taught in the Mechilta in another version:²⁴⁵Mechilta on the verse before us (Lauterbach’s edition, pp. 85-6). “And none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning. This teaches us that once permission is given to the destroying angel,²⁴⁶“The destroying angel.” In the Mechilta: “the angel.” he does not discriminate between righteous and wicked, as it is said, Come My people, enter into thy chambers … until the indignation be overpast.²⁴⁷Isaiah 26:20. And it also says, Behold, I am against thee, and will draw forth My sword out of its sheath, and will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked.²⁴⁸Ezekiel 21:8. And it further says, And it shall come to pass, while My glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock.²⁴⁹Further, 33:22. This is to teach you²⁵⁰In the Mechilta: “Until the morning. This is to teach you….” that you are to come into a place only in the daytime²⁵¹Literally: “when it is good,” a reference to the verse, And G-d saw the light, that it was good (Genesis 1:4). and leave it only in the daytime.²⁵¹Literally: “when it is good,” a reference to the verse, And G-d saw the light, that it was good (Genesis 1:4). And thus you find that the patriarchs and the prophets observed this as a custom, as it is said: And Abraham rose early in the morning;²⁵²Ibid., 22:3. And Jacob rose up early in the morning;²⁵³Ibid., 28:18. And Moses rose up early in the morning;²⁵⁴Further, 34:4. And Joshua rose up in the morning;²⁵⁵Joshua 3:1. And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning.²⁵⁶I Samuel 15:12. Now is it not a kal vachomer:²⁵⁷See above, Note 208. If the patriarchs and the prophets, who went to carry out the will of Him by Whose word the world came into being, observed this as a custom, how much more should all other people observe it! And thus it says, Thou makest darkness, and it is night;²⁴³Psalms 104:20. The young lions roar after their prey;²⁵⁸Psalms 104:21. Thou givest it unto them, they gather it;²⁵⁹Ibid., Verse 28. The sun ariseth, they slink away.²⁶⁰Ibid., Verse 22. From then on, Man goeth forth unto his work, and to his labor until the evening.”²⁶¹Ibid., Verse 23. Thus far extends [the quotation from] the Beraitha.²⁶²See above, Note 208.
The purport thereof is to state that Scripture warned the Israelites in Egypt not to go out of the door of their homes on that night because the Holy One, blessed be He, was passing through Egypt like a king who passes from one place to another and whose guardsmen go before him so that people should neither meet him nor see him. This is similar to that which is said, And the Eternal my G-d shall come, and all the holy ones with Thee;²⁶³Zechariah 14:5. and also, And it shall come to pass, while My glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock,²⁴⁹Further, 33:22. i.e., to protect him [Moses] from the seraphim and the heavenly agencies. And since we find that once permission is given to the destroying angel he does not discriminate between righteous and wicked, therefore a person has no right²⁶⁴Thus there appears a distinction between Rashi’s explanation and that of Ramban. The conclusion drawn from Rashi’s explanation would be that “it is forbidden” to go out on any other night, as Ramban argued. According to Ramban, one has “no right” to do it, since in going against the established order of nature, he may endanger his life, and this he has no right to do. to change from the customary way of the world and leave at night-time, since it is the time of the wild beasts when they go out for prey, and there is no way [for them] to distinguish between righteous and wicked.

משכו, “draw out!” The meaning is to include as many members of the family into participating in the eating of one lamb so that there would be no leftovers. We find the root משך used in this context in Judges 4,7, where Devorah tells Barak that she will arrange that as many warriors as possible will be pulled together to the river Kishon, so as to present a good target for his attack. [Barak was to swoop down from Mount Tabor. Siserah’s chariots would be useless in the river. Ed.] The Torah repeats the instruction to slaughter the lamb, because it had to tell us about the bunch of hyssop that was to be dipped in the blood and smeared on the doorposts of the houses and the lintels. Also it had to tell us because of the end of the verse where the people inside the houses are warned not even to step outside until morning.

למשפחתיכם [A LAMB] ACCORDING TO YOUR FAMILIES — this corresponds to שה לבית אבות a lamb for the house of their fathers in verse 3.

אזוב HYSSOP — a kind of herb which has thin stalks.

מן הדם אשר בסף, so that every sprinkling be preceded by immersion of the hyssop in the blood, in accordance with G’d’s instructions in verse 6 “on the two upright posts and the lintel.” The sprinkling of the upright posts with the blood had to precede that of the lintel. This could not be accomplished unless there had been three separate sprinklings to reflect the three letters י which served G’d as a means with which to create the universe. This is based on the saying in Menachot 29 that the world of the future (or the world in which we spend our afterlife) was created with the letter י, as opposed to the material universe we live in now, which was created with the letter ה. The other two occasions when the letter י symbolised a world in a state of perfection was before Adam had sinned in Gan Eden, and on the day the Jewish people accepted the Torah at Mount Sinai until the day they sinned with the golden calf (40 days) All this is based on Isaiah 26,4 כי בי-ה ה' צור עולמים. The reason why the letter י is presumed to symbolise this kind of perfection is that it is a mere dot (when written) and requires no physical outline, צורה, as do all the other letters. Not only that, the uniqueness of that letter symbolises the uniqueness of the Creator Who presides over two universes both of infinite duration, or over heaven and earth (one single universe consisting of two parts both parts of which are eternal).

בסף, a small basin. The word occurs again in Kings II 12,14 as ספות כסף, “silver bowls.” It occurs also in Esther 2,21 as שומרי הסף where its meaning is less clear, more likely meaning ”threshold.”

ואתם לא תצאו, “as far as your yourselves are concerned, do not set foot outside the threshold of your houses.” Rashi points out that this warning became necessary after G’d had given permission to the forces normally active as destructive elements, such as the angel of death, to be about on that night and to perform their duties. These forces are not equipped to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty, and the night is the period during which they perform most of their work. He quotes Psalms 104,20 בו תרמוש כל חיתו יער, “that is when all the beasts of the forest stir,” as his source. Nachmanides writes that he does not understand Rashi’s remark that the night is the period during which all destructive forces enjoy free reign. If that were so, he argues, why is it not forbidden to go out every night in order to protect oneself against these forces, based on the warning in the verse we have just read? Rashi should have written that on this particular night the destructive forces in the world had been given a free hand to carry out their work. The reason that the Torah, i.e. Rashi, did not want to present the matter in this light, is that seeing that G’d personally, orchestrated the killing of the firstborn a wrong impression would have been created. What happened was as follows: G’d warned the Israelites not to leave their houses during that night because during that night G’d Himself was traversing all parts of Egypt, similar to a king who patrols his realm. Just as a king does not do so without an entourage which precedes him to herald his coming, and which ensures that no assassins lie in wait for the king, so it is with G’d, as we know from Zecharyah 14,5 ובא ה' אלוקי כל קדושים עמך, “and the Lord my G’d will arrive and all the holy angels will be with You.” Seeing that we find that at a time when the destructive forces have been given free reign they do not distinguish between the guilty and the innocent, the only way the Israelites would all be immune on that night was if they stayed indoors. Normal people do not go out at night even if they have not been told not to do so, because they are aware that it is not as safe as to go out by day. If, on that night, an Israelite would change his habit of staying at home, he would expose himself more than he would on other nights. How do we deal with the words: ולא יתן המשחית לבא אל בתיכם לנגוף, “and He will not allow the destroyer to enter your homes to inflict him?” The meaning is that the destructive forces which abound every night anyways, will be restricted to the outside by G’d on this night, so that no Israelite who stays indoors will die on that night, [even if according to G’d’s timetable set for him before he was born, this was the date when normally he should have died. Ed.] On that night only G’d Himself killed Egyptians. Some commentators simply say that the word המשחית in our context here is not an adjective but a noun describing the act of destruction, השחתה.

Three stalks are called a bunch. I.e., we should not explain that five stalks are needed. See Tosafos, Maseches Succah 13a. (Nachalas Yaakov)

V. 22. Gleich bei diesem ersten Gesetze ist uns ein konkretes Beispiel von השב׳׳פ gegeben. Wir sehen hier Mosche eine die Ausführung eines Gesetzes näher präzisierende Bestimmung den Ältesten des Volkes mitteilen, welche in den voranstehenden Aussprüchen Gottes nicht enthalten ist. So hatte Mosche auch bei allen späteren Gesetzen nähere Erläuterungen empfangen und mitzuteilen, die unter den nur das Allgemeine enthaltenden Aussprüchen Gottes nicht mit aufgeführt sind, und eben der mündlichen Mitteilung vorbehalten bleiben. —

והגעתם אל המשקוף ואל שתי המזוזות, “and apply some to the lintel and to the two doorposts.” In verse 7 of this chapter the Torah had issued these instructions in the reverse order, i.e. to apply the blood to the two doorposts and the lintel.” The reason for this is to teach us that the order in which this ritual was performed did not matter.

אגדת אזוב A BUNCH OF HYSSOP — three stalks are called a bunch (cf. Shabbat 109b; Sukkah 13a).

ואתם לא תצאו, from the house which has been marked with blood. ופסח, and in this fashion G’d will skip, pass-over. The meaning of the words is similar to Ezekiel 9,4 והתוית תו על מצחות האנשים, “you will mark the foreheads of these men with a sign, etc.”

לא תצאו, seeing that the sign of the blood on the doorposts is the only thing which protects you.

This teaches that once dominion is given to the destroyer. . . This is not referring to the destroyer of the Egyptians, as every first-born was smitten although he did not step outside. Rather it is referring to the destroyer that comes out every night, as Rashi proceeds to explain, “Night is when the destroying angels have dominion.” The B’nei Yisrael were commanded not to go out this night in particular — although all nights have the same danger — so the Egyptians would not say, “Just as we were smitten, they were also smitten,” and then they would say that Moshe is a liar. For they would not know that the regular destroyer did it, whereas Moshe was speaking of the special destroyer who smote the Egyptian first-born.

אגודת אזוב wie die Form אזב schon durch ihren Laut sich als die schwächere Form von עשב ankündigt, so bezeichnet es auch ein schwaches, unselbständiges Gewächs im Gegensatz zur starken, hochanstrebenden Zeder. Es scheint allerdings, da es גבעולין, holzartige Stengel hatte (Para 11, 9), zu den strauchartigen Gewächsen zu gehören. Es dürfte jedoch zweifelhaft sein, ob darunter unser Ysop zu verstehen sei, der allerdings auch auf Mauern wachsend vorkommt und somit dem אזוב אשר יצא בקיר entsprechen würde, allein doch immerhin ein schuhhoch werdendes Gewächs ist, das so stark ist, dass es in Gärten zu Einfassungen gebraucht wird. Vielleicht ist es aber eben eine der niedrigsten und schwächsten Baumarten im Gegensatz zur Zeder. Jedenfalls repräsentiert es Kleinheit und Schwäche. Vielleicht ist der Gegensatz מן הארז אשר בלבנון ועד האזוב אשר יצא בקיר (Könige I. 5, 13) auch im Standpunkt zu suchen. Der Ysop ist eine gemeine Pflanze, auf jeder Mauer zu finden, braucht auch keinen besondern, bedeutenden Boden zum Fortkommen; die Zeder aber findet man nur auf dem Libanon. Kleinheit, Schwäche, Bescheidenheit, alle diese Merkmale entsprechen aber dem Gebrauch, welchen das Gesetz vom אזוב hier und auch bei טומאת מת und מצורע macht. Mit Ysop soll das Blut an die Häuser gegeben werden. Schwach, bedeutungslos ist der Gebende und gewinnt nur Kraft und Zukunft durch Blut des Peßach. Während bei פרה das "Bündel" beim Ysop nur מצוה ist, ist es hier beim Peßach wesentlich, מעכב, dass das Blut mit einem aus drei Ysopstengeln gewundenen Bunde gegeben werde. Repräsentiert ja das Blut wie der Gebende nicht einen einzelnen, sondern eine חבורה, eine אגודה, einen Verein von Persönlichkeiten. —

אשר בסף means WHICH IS IN THE VESSEL, as in (2 Kings 12:14) “basins (ספות) of silver.”

Oben heißt es: ונתנו על שתי המזוזת ועל המשקוף, hier: והגעתם על המשקוף ועל שתי המזוזת, um zu lehren, dass אם הקדים זה לזה יצא (Mechilta), daß beide, die sich hingebende Huldigung Gottes in unserer sozialen (מזוזת), wie die in unserer physischen Stellung (משקוף), gleich bedeutsam sind. Wenn gleichwohl והגעתם mehr die Tätigkeit des Hinanbringens des Blutes, ונתנו die Wirkung dieser Tätigkeit, das daraus hervorgehende Vorhandensein des Symbols an den Häusern ausdrückt, so dürfte zunächst wohl ausgesprochen sein, dass zuerst die Dachschwelle und dann die Pfosten mit dem Blute berührt werden sollen, an den Häusern haftend aber das Symbol zuerst an den Pfosten und dann an der Dachschwelle zu denken sei. In dem Begriff des Hauses tritt die soziale Abgrenzung zuerst hervor. Genetisch geht die Huldigung der Gottesmacht in Mitte der Naturgewalten voran, sie bedingt die Huldigung Gottes in der Geschichte. Da auch die erste Wirkung dieser Huldigung nicht die soziale Befreiung, sondern die physische Erhaltung war, heißt es daher auch V. 23: וראה את הדם על .המשקוף וגו׳

מן הדם אשר בסף WITH THE BLOOD WHICH IS IN THE BASIN — Why does Scripture repeat this (אשר בסף) again? In order that you should not say that one dipping of the hyssop in the basin suffices for the three sprinklings, therefore it is again stated: “[you shall touch the lintel…] “with the blood that is in the basin”, to show that each separate sprinkling must be with the blood which is in the basin — for each touching of the lintel and doorposts there must be a separate dipping (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:22:1).

ואתם לא תצאו וגו׳ AND NONE OF YOU SHALL GO OUT etc. — This tells us that when once permission is given to the destroying angel to wound he makes no distinction between righteous and wicked (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:22:2) — and nighttime is the domain of the destroying agencies as it is said, (Psalms 104:20) “[Thou makest darkness and it is night], wherein all the beasts of the forest creep forth”.

ופסח signifies AND HE WILL SPARE; and one can also explain it to mean, “and He will leap over them” (cf. Rashi on v. 13 and on Isaiah 30:5).

AND HE WILL NOT SUFFER THE DESTROYER TO COME IN UNTO YOUR HOUSES. This means the angel that brings destruction in the world at the time of a plague, similar to that which it says, And He said to the angel that destroyed the people: It is enough; now stay thy hand.²⁶⁵II Samuel 24:16. It is not, however, a reference to the One Who brought the destruction in Egypt, since it was the Holy One, blessed be He, Who smote them.

לנגוף, to afflict them with the afflictions G’d will visit on the Egyptian people other than deadly plagues. Whenever the expression נגף is used it refers to afflictions that do not result in death. A well known example of this is found in Exodus 21,22 ונגפו אשה הרה ולא יהיה אסון, “and he pushes a pregnant woman without causing any death, etc.”

ולא יתן המשחית לבא, “and will not suffer the destroyer to come;” Rabbi Moshe finds this phrase difficult, as in the Haggadah shel Pessach, the author quoting verse 12 in our chapter, we are told expressly that G–d Himself carried out the plague of killing the firstborn, so that the angel of death was not involved in any way on that night. We must therefore understand the verses to mean that what is meant is that the angel of death by himself was not authorised to perform his duties on that night, only in conjunction with the Lord Himself. The Lord never acts alone, but is always accompanied by an angel or angels.

ולא יתן המשחית, “and He will not allow the Destroyer to, etc.; ”when our sages in the haggadah said that the line: ועברתי בארץ מצרים, means that G-d personally will carry out the killing of the firstborn, not any category of angel, (compare verse 12) they meant that He would not delegate an angel to perform this task but would perform it Himself, personally.

ולא יתן המשחית AND HE WILL NOT GIVE THE DESTROYER He will not give him power to come in. The phrase is similar to (Genesis 31:9) “And God did not suffer him (נתנו — give him the power) to do me evil”.

המשחית, the Egyptian people by one of G’d’s other attributes expressing His anger.

AND YE SHALL OBSERVE THIS THING. This refers to the Passover-offering itself, concerning which He had said above, and slaughter the Passover lamb,²⁶⁶Above, Verse 21. even though it is removed [by two verses from here]. It does not refer to the putting of the blood [upon the lintel and on the two side-posts, mentioned above] in the verse nearby, since only in the Passover of Egypt were they commanded to do so, [i.e., to put the blood upon the lintel, etc.], as it is said, For the Eternal will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He seeth the blood upon the lintel, etc.²⁶⁷Verse 23. How then could we explain the end of the verse before us, which states that we are to observe this thing as an ordinance forever, when it applied only to the Passover of Egypt? Hence we must say that the expression, this thing, refers to the Passover-offering itself, mentioned above in Verse 21, which we are commanded to observe forever, i.e., whenever the Sanctuary is in existence. Verse 11, which states, And thus shall ye eat it: with your loins girded, etc., also applied only to the Passover of Egypt (Pesachim 96 a). Similarly, the expression, and ye shall keep this service,²⁶⁸Verse 25. means the offering of the Passover. A similar case [of a Scriptural expression that is connected with one that is far removed and not with the one nearby], is the verse, And also unto thy bondwoman thou shalt do likewise.²⁶⁹Deuteronomy 15:17. This is connected with Verse 14 there above, thus making it obligatory for the master to present a released bondwoman with valuable gifts, even as he must do to the bondman. But it is not to be connected with the expression in the first half of Verse 17 itself, which establishes the law of a bondman who refused to be liberated at the end of his six years of bondage, i.e., that his ear is to be pierced and he is to be a bondman forever. As regards this law, it does not apply to a bondwoman.

ושמרתם את הדבר הזה, "You will observe this matter." According to the plain meaning of this verse the Torah tells that such matters as the sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb would also be performed in future generations. However, we have no reports to indicate that these details were ever observed again. We do not find that either the Mishnah or the Talmud ever instituted this as a rabbinic requirement. I believe that the words לחק לך on the one hand, and ולבניך on the other hand, mean that the application of the Passover law is not identical for future generations. As for as you, i.e. the present generation is concerned, all the aforementioned details apply. As to לבניך עד עולם only certain details of the Passover in Egypt will apply. The verse relies on legislation repeated in the Torah elsewhere to arrive at the pertinent observances to be observed in the future. The repetition of the purpose of these observances in Egypt, i.e. to keep the angel of death away from the homes of the Jews makes it plain that certain of the details would not apply in the future when G'd would not kill the firstborns.

ושמרתם את הדבר הזה, “You shall observe this matter.” This verse does not refer to the instruction to smear the blood of the Passover lamb on the lintel and doorposts, seeing that this was a commandment that applied only on the night of the Exodus, but it refers to the basic Passover legislation and its ritual.

(Exodus 12:24) "And you shall keep this thing": to include the Pesach of future generations, that it be brought only from sheep or goats. These are the words of R. Eliezer. "as a statute for you and for your sons": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 7) "And they shall take from the blood, etc.", I might think that the women, too, are included. It is, therefore, written "as a statute for you and for your sons."

V. 24. את הדבר הזה, dieses Wort, dass Gott das Blut an den Häusern sehen und in Folge dessen die Rettung gewähren werde. Es ist damit die erste Mizwa von Gott zu einem sprechendsten Symbol und die Mizwaübung zu einer beredtesten Symbolsprache zwischen uns und Gott, von der positivsten, heilbringendsten Wirkung eingesetzt, und damit zugleich Bedeutung und Bedeutsamkeit aller folgenden ähnlichen Mizwot gegeben. — Der Wechsel des Numerus: לך — ושמרתם spricht sich also aus, entweder: Bewahret das Wort in eurer Gesamtheit, damit es jedem einzelnen für sich und seine Kinder zum Gesetz werde; oder bewahret das Wort in eurer Vielheit, damit es der Nation in ihrer Einheit zum Gesetz werde. Die Anrede im Singular ist nämlich überall an das einzelne Individuum, oder an die Nation als Einheit gerichtet. Jedenfalls ist durch die gleichzeitige Anrede im Plural oder Singular einer irrigen Auffassung nach beiden Seiten begegnet. Es begnügt sich das Gesetz weder mit bloßer Anerkennung und Erfüllung im Einzelleben, noch mit bloßer Anerkennung und Verwirklichung durch die Nation als Einheitsbegriff, etwa durch eine sie darstellende Repräsentanz. Das Gesetz will in der Nation als Gesamteinheit und in jedem einzelnen jüdischen Hause, in jeder einzelnen jüdischen Brust seine Anerkennung und Verwirklichung finden.

והיה כי תבאן אל הארץ AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS WHEN YE BE COME TO THE LAND — Scripture makes the observance of this service dependent upon their entrance into the land of Palestine (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:25), and they were not under any obligation, when in the wilderness, to keep more than the one Passover which they kept in the second year after the Exodus (cf. Numbers 9:1—5), and that, too, only in consequence of a special divine communication. (Cf. Rashi on Numbers 9:1 and כאשר דבר (תוס׳ קיד׳ ל"ז ע"ב ד"ה הואיל

והיה כי תבאו אל הארץ, "It will be when you come to the land, etc." According to the plain meaning of the verse the commandment mentioned here does not apply until after the Israelites enter the Holy Land. If that were so, however, why did G'd appear to have changed His mind when He commanded the Israelites to observe the Passover in the second year of their wanderings in the desert "at the appropriate time and in all its details" (Numbers 9,1)?

והיה כי תבואו אל הארץ, “it will be after you will come to the land, etc” This spells out that the Israelites during their journey to the holy Land, were not required to observe the Passover rites and the festival as such, on the anniversary of their departure from Egypt. The Torah insists that the legislation will become effective immediately the people will cross the Jordan into the Holy Land, even if they have not yet conquered part of the land and settled there. This raises the question that the Torah reports in the Book of Numbers that on the first anniversary of the Exodus the Israelites did observe the Passover rites? (Numbers 9,1-8) The answer is simple. The observance of that Passover had to be especially legislated by G’d by special instruction to Moses. If it had been mandatory based, on what we have read here, why did G’d have to give instructions on that occasion that it be observed? Although Rashi says that the fact that the Israelites’ having observed the Passover rites in the second year when they were still encamped around Mount Sinai is detailed in the Torah was an implied rebuke, i.e. that only in that year did they offer the Passover, what rebuke was there for something they had not been asked to do in the first place? We may have to answer that what Rashi meant was that the Israelites had not been deemed fit to offer the Passover after the sin of the spies, a testimony to their having rejected the whole liberation from Egypt, and they had even wanted to appoint a leader to take them back there. [I elaborated somewhat. Ed.] Had the people not committed that sin, they would have been settled in their homeland already before another year had passed, so that no more than one Passover in the desert had ever been envisaged.

(Exodus 12:25) "And it shall be, when you come to the land": The service is contingent upon their entering the land and thereafter. (In the desert they were obliged to observe only one Pesach, in the second year, by Divine command.) "as He has spoken": And where did He speak it? (Ibid. 6:8) "and I shall bring you to the land, etc." Similarly, (Ibid. 16:23) "This is what the L rd has spoken: 'A resting, a holy Sabbath, etc.'" And where did He speak it? (Ibid. 5) "And it shall be on the sixth day that they shall prepare, etc." Similarly, (Leviticus 10:3) "This is as the L rd spoke: With My near ones I will be sanctified." And where did He speak it? (Exodus 29:43) "And I will be appointed there for the children of Israel and it (the mishkan) will be sanctified by My glory" (i.e., by My glorifiers). Similarly, (Devarim 11:25) "The L rd your G d will put the dread and fear of you over the whole land … as He spoke to you." And where did He speak it? (Exodus 23:27) "My fright shall I send before you, and I shall confound all the people, etc." (Devarim 12:20) "When the L rd your G d broadens your boundary, as he spoke to you, etc." And where did He speak it? (Exodus 34:24) "for I shall drive out nations from before you and I shall broaden your boundary," (Ibid. 23:31) "And I shall set your boundary from the Red Sea, etc." Similarly, (Devarim 15:6) "for the L rd your G d will bless you as He spoke to you." And where did He speak it? (Ibid. 7:14) "Blessed shall you be over all other peoples." Similarly (Ibid. 26:18) "and the L rd has affirmed this day to make you His chosen people as He spoke to you." And where did He speak it? (Exodus 19:5) "then you shall be to Me chosen above all the peoples." Similarly (Devarim 26:19) "and to place you higher than all the nations … as He spoke." And whence did He speak it? (Ibid. 28:13) "And the L rd will make you the head, and not the tail. Similarly, (Isaiah 1:2) "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, as the L rd has spoken." And where did He speak it? (Devarim 32:1) "Hear, O heavens, and I shall speak." Similarly, (Isaiah 40:5) "The glory of the L rd shall appear, and all flesh will behold as one, for the mouth of the L rd has spoken." And where did He speak it? (Devarim 32:39) "See, now, that I — I am He, and there is no god beside Me." Similarly, (Isaiah 1:19-20) "If you acquiesce and pay heed, the good of the earth will you eat. But if you refuse and rebel, the sword will devour you; for the mouth of the L rd has spoken." And where did He speak it? (Leviticus 26:25) "… I will bring against you an avenging sword, etc." Similarly, (Isaiah 25:8) "He will destroy death forever … for the L rd has spoken." And where did He speak it? (Devarim 32:39) "I put to death and I bring to life, etc." Similarly, (Isaiah 58:14) "then you will rejoice in the L rd, and I will 'ride' you on the heights of the earth, etc." And where did He speak it? (Devarim 32:13) "He will 'ride' him on the heights of the earth, etc." Similarly, (Ezekiel 39:8) "Behold, it has come; it has arrived, says the L rd G d. This is the day of which I spoke." And where did He speak of it? (Devarim 32:42) "I will make My arrows drunk with blood, etc." Similarly, (Michah 4:4) "and each man will sit under his grapevine … for the mouth of the L rd of hosts has spoken." And where did He speak it? (Leviticus 26:6) "And I will place peace in the land, etc." Similarly, (Ovadiah 1:18) "And there will be no survivor of the house of Esav, for the mouth of the L rd has spoken." And where did He speak it? (Numbers 24:18-19) "And Edom (Esav) will become an inheritance … and a victor will issue from Jacob and will destroy all trace of Ir." Similarly, (Genesis 21:1) "And the L rd remembered Sarah (for motherhood) as He had said." "And where did He say it? (Ibid. 17:19) "And G d said: But Sarah your wife will bear, etc." Similarly, (Ibid. 21:1) "And the L rd did for Sarah as He had spoken." And where did He speak it? (Ibid. 15:4) "And the 'speaking' of the L rd was to him. This one (Ishmail) will not inherit you, etc." Similarly, (Yoel 4:8) "and I will sell your sons and your daughters, etc." And where did he speak it? (Genesis 9:25) "And he (Noach) said: Cursed is Canaan. A servant of servants will he be to his brothers." Similarly, (Devarim 17:16) "And the L rd said to you: You will not go back this way (to Egypt) again." And where did He say it? (Exodus 14:13) "For your seeing Egypt is (only) this day. You will see them no more forever." Similarly, (Isaiah 65:25) "The wolf and the lamb will graze together…said the L rd." And where did He say it? (Leviticus 26:6) "I will cut off wild beasts from the land." Similarly, (I Kings 11:2) "… of the nations of which the L rd said … You shall not come among them, etc." And where did He say it? (Devarim 7:3) "And you shall not intermarry with them, etc." Similarly, (I Kings 8:12) "The L rd has said that He will dwell in a thick cloud." And where did He say it? (Leviticus 16:2) "For in a thick cloud will I appear upon the (ark) cover." Similarly, (Malachi 3:17) "'and they will be Mine,' said the L rd." And where did He say it? (Exodus 19:5) "And you will be unto Me, chosen, etc." Similarly, (Yoel 3:5) "And all who call in the name of the L rd … as the L rd said." And where did He say it? (Devarim 28:10) "And all the peoples of the earth will see that the L rd's name is called upon you, etc." Similarly, (Isaiah 66:20-21) "And they will bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the L rd … And also from them will I take Cohanim and Levites, the L rd said." And where did He say this? (Devarim 29:28) "What is concealed (from us [e.g., who is a Cohein and who, a Levite]) is known to the L rd our G d." Here, too, (Exodus 12:25) "And it shall be, when you come to the land that the L rd will give you, as He has spoken, etc." And where did He speak it? (Ibid. 6:8) "And I shall bring you to the land, etc." (Exodus 12:26) "And it shall be, when your sons say to you, etc.": At that time, Israel was receiving bad tidings, that the Torah was destined to be forgotten. Others say they were receiving good tidings, that they were destined to see sons and sons of sons. (Exodus 12:27) "And the people bowed down and prostrated themselves": Why did they bow down? For it is written (Ibid. 13:18) "And the children of Israel went out of Egypt chamushim" — one out of five ("chamishah"). Others say one out of fifty ("chamishim"). And others say one out of five hundred ("chamesh me'oth"). R. Nehorai says; Upon my oath, not one in five hundred went out. For it is written (Ezekiel 16:7) "Numerous as the spouts of the field did I make you" (in Egypt), and (Exodus 1:7) "And the children of Israel were fruitful, and teemed" — One woman would bear six in one womb. And you say one in five hundred went out? And when did they die? In the three days of darkness, of which it is written (Exodus 10:23) "One man could not see another." The Jews buried their dead, and they were thankful and praised (the L rd) that their foes could not see (the dead) and rejoice in their downfall. (Ibid. 12:27) "Then you shall say that it is a Paschal sacrifice to the L rd.": R. Yossi Haglili said: The Jews would have deserved to die in Egypt (if not for the merit of the Paschal sacrifice) whereby the last of them consummated his sacrifice (and lived.) "Then you shall say that it is a Paschal sacrifice." We are hereby apprised that all who hear of or see the miracles that the Holy One Blessed be He wrought in Egypt must give praise. And thus is it written (Exodus 18:8-9) "And Moses related to his father-in-law all that the L rd did to Pharaoh and to Egypt. And Yithro rejoiced, etc." (Ibid. 28) "And the children of Israel went and they did": Reward is given for both the going and the doing. "and they did": Now did they already do? __ Their taking it upon themselves to do is regarded as their doing. "as the L rd commanded": We are hereby apprised of their eminence. Exactly as Moses and Aaron commanded them thus did they do. What is the intent of (the seemingly superfluous) "Thus did they do"? Moses and Aaron, too, did thus.

V. 25. והיה כ׳ תבאו וגו׳: Wenn ihr nicht mehr מעזנים und nicht mehr עבדים und nicht mehr גרים sein werdet. העברה: in weiterem Sinne ist unser ganzes Leben עבדת ד׳, Dienst Gottes, und עבד ד׳ sein, alle seine Kräfte in jedem Lebensmomente zur Vollbringung des göttlichen Willens verwenden, ist das höchste dem Menschen erreichbare Ziel. Im engern Sinne nennen wir diejenigen Vollbringungen, mit welchen wir unsere Wesen immer erneut in den Dienst Gottes stellen und uns für diesen Dienst rüsten, also Opfer und Gebet, besonders: עבדה. In der תורה jedoch kommt von keinem Opfer speziell der Name עבדה vor, außer vom Peßach. War ja doch das Peßach diejenige Handlung, mit welchem zuerst die jüdischen Menschen, die jüdischen Häuser, der jüdische Staat in den Dienst Gottes eintraten, und ist ja das Peßach diejenige Handlung, mit welcher dieser Diensteintritt immer aufs neue sich vollziehen soll. Daher כי תבאו וגו׳, wenn die letzte Spur von der ägyptischen Knechtschaft verwischt sein wird und ihr glücklich, frei und ansässig sein werdet, dann sollt ihr sorgfältig immer diese עבדה wiederholen, immer euch zurückversetzen in den glück-, freiheit- und bodenarmen Anfang eures nationalen Daseins und immer aufs neue wie damals euren Eintritt in den Dienst Gottes wiederholen.

ACCORDING AS HE SPAKE — And where did He say that He would give them that land? In the following verse: (Exodus 6:8) “And I will bring you into the land” (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:25).

It would appear that this verse contains an assurance that if the Israelites would conduct themselves meritoriously they would already observe the following year's Passover in their homeland. The delay occurred only because of the Israelites' disobedience and rebelliousness which commenced already before the completion of the Exodus at the Sea of Reeds (compare Psalms 106,7: "they rebelled at the sea, at the Sea of Reeds"). All these factors delayed the conquest of the Holy Land. When G'd saw that they were still in the desert He had to issue a command that they should observe the Passover even in the desert. Up to that point in the Book of Numbers they had only been commanded to observe the Passover once they arrived in the Holy Land. While it is true- as the prophet Isaiah has said- that G'd knows of all future developments in advance (Isaiah 41,4), He had held back with issuing instructions which would indicate that the trek through the desert would be beset with problems.

מה העבודה הזאת לכם?, which is performed on a day that does not even bear the appellation מקרא קודש, “holy convocation? All the other mandatory communal offerings are offered on days designated as festivals. Not only that, but the whole day is available for slaughtering those offerings whereas the offering known as Passover is only accepted from noon until sunset [roughly, in fact even less time than that. Ed.] Besides, why does not a single communal offering serve as this memorial of the Exodus? Other public offerings serve each for the whole community.

מה העבודה הזאת?, which is so different from all other festivals in so many respects?

What is this service. The Pesach sacrifice is singled out for the scoffer’s derision because it serves no practical purpose, unlike other sacrifices which at least serve as appeasement or atonement. And if it is to serve as an expression of gratitude for the redemption it should not have been made to coincide specifically with the striking of the first born, for in no other instance are we commanded to commemorate miracles. The only exceptions are the festivals of Chanukah and Purim and even in those cases the intention of the Sages was to call to mind the deeper concepts connected with the miracles, not the miracles themselves.

V. 26. Es ist dies die Frage eines Gottes entfremdeten Geschlechtes, das den Menschen nur in den Dienst seiner selbst und den Wert einer Handlung in die greifbare Nützlichkeit derselben setzt.

?מה העבודה הזאת לכם, “what do you mean by this rite?” other rituals are governed by certain times of the year. The cutting of the omer must take place on the 16th of the month of Nissan; as this is the time when the barley harvest begins; the two loaves of wheat is to be offered on the 50th day after the first day of Passover; the four species of plants are to be used ritually on the 15th day of Tishrey. This ritual of applying the blood of the offering to the doorpost on the 14th day of Nissan is the exception as that day has no other significance. [I find this interpretation difficult, as the ritual described was not ever again performed after the Israelites left Egypt. So why would future generations raise a question about a ritual that their fathers did not perform? Ed.] “You are to say that it is part of the ritual of the Passover offering;”

ויקד העם AND THE PEOPLE BOWED THE HEAD in thanksgiving for the tidings of the approaching deliverance and for the promise of their coming into the land, and for the tidings regarding the children whom they would have (since v. 26 implies that they would be blessed with children).

זבח פסח הוא, this offering commemorates the skipping over by G’d of each individual Jewish home, something that occurred at midnight. Accordingly, the offering should really have been brought after midnight when the Jewish firstborn had already experienced that G’d saved him. As a result it really would have been at night. However, since we have a rule that offerings must not be brought on the altar at night, it had to be brought at a time which is closely associated with the impending night, i.e. the period described here as בין הערבים.

אשר פסח, “who skipped over.”

זבח פסח הוא, “it is a Passover feast offering.” The term פסח expresses the concept of המלטה, escaping from something, being rescued, similar to the word פסוח. The term is used seeing that G’d, out of a feeling of pity, allowed the firstborn Israelites to survive this judgment of the idolaters. They qualified for this pity because they had demonstrated loyalty to G’d by offering the lamb. This is why the lamb itself is now referred to as פסח.

For the foretelling of the redemption. . . Rashi inferred that there were three reasons for being thankful because it is written, ויקוד העם וישתחוו , “they bowed (singular) and prostrated themselves (plural).” The verse should have simply said ויקדו (and they bowed, plural), similar to וישתחוו (which is plural). Thus, the verse’s wording indicates that there was one bowing and two prostrations. (Maharshal)

V. 27. ואמרתם וגו׳, nicht ואמרתם להם wie später ואמרת אליו ,והגדת לבנך sondern absolut. Für ein in materielle Gottentfremdung versunkenes Geschlecht erwartet das Gotteswort keine Besserung von direkter Belehrung, wohl aber von dem Beispiel eines in bewusstvoller Begeisterung sich aussprechenden Ernstes der Erfüllung. Unbekümmert um die verächtliche Einsprache eines Geschlechtes, dem in der Verknöcherung des Materialismus Geist und Sinn der göttlichen Übungen abhanden gekommen, sollt ihr es aussprechen, damit es höre, wer es hören will, dass es noch זבח פסח הוא לד׳, dass es noch ein aus dem Tode zum Leben führendes Mahl sei, dass für Israel Leben und Freiheit noch an denselben Bedingungen hängen, die ihm zuerst Leben und Freiheit gebracht, dass somit diese עבדה, dieses wiederholte symbolische Eintreten in den Dienst Gottes, eine Handlung von höchster, positivster Folgenschwere in aller Gegenwart sei und bleibe. Darum, weil dies זבח פסח וגו׳ keine direkte Antwort an den רשע ist, konnte auch die Peßach-Haggada die Erwiderung desselben in den Satz kleiden: בעבור זה עשה ד׳ לי וגו׳, der eben die folgenreiche Bedeutsamkeit dieser zu übenden symbolischen Mizwot enthält und sich in seiner Allgemeinheit auch auf die Chamez- und Mazzapflichtübung bezieht, die jederzeit zur Erfüllung kommt, auch wenn das Peßach, wie in den Zeiten des Galut, nicht zur Vollziehung kommen kann.

בנגפו את מצרים, “when He smote Egypt;” on the night of the 15th of Nissan;”

ואת בתינו הציל, “while at the same time saving our houses (from that plague). As a commemoration of this miracle we perform these rites.”An alternate interpretation: The question of the children in future generations does not apply to the rite of smearing blood on the doorposts but applies to the insistence that the meat of the Passover offering may be consumed only after having been roasted on the fire, and not when boiled in water, or half raw; the answer of the father is that this was a reminder of the haste in which all this had to be done.

ויקוד העם וישתחוו, the people upon hearing this bowed low and prostrated themselves. This was a rite indicating that the party performing it accepted the instructions the Torah described in this chapter. It was an internationally accepted way of indicating acceptance of a command.

וילכו ויעשו בני ישראל AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WENT AND DID — But did they really do this at once — was not all this spoken to them at the beginning of the month (cf. Rashi on v. 3) and they carried out the command only on the tenth and the fourteenth? But the explanation is: so soon as they had taken these duties upon themselves Scripture accounts it unto them as though they had already performed them (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:25).

AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WENT AND DID SO; AS THE ETERNAL HATH COMMANDED MOSES AND AARON, SO DID THEY. That is, they departed from before Moses and went to the sheep and slaughtered the Passover-offering at eventide [of the fourteenth day of Nisan]. Now such is Scriptural custom to repeat and say, so did they, in order to explain that they did not omit anything from whatever they were commanded, as I have explained in the case of Noah.²⁷⁰Genesis 6:22. See Vol. I, p. 114. A similar case is the verse, And Moses saw all the work, and behold, they had done it; as the Eternal had commanded, even so had they done it.²⁷¹Further, 39:42.
Now our Rabbis have a Midrash on this verse, since it was not necessary for Scripture to mention that the children of Israel “went” [and did so]. Therefore they explained:²⁷²Mechilta on the verse before us. “And the children of Israel went. This indicates that reward is given for going [to perform a religious duty] as well as for actually performing it. And they did so. And had they already done so?²⁷³“Was not all this spoken to them at the beginning ot the month?” (Rashi). They were commanded to take the lamb on the tenth day and slaughter it on the fourteenth. Thus they could not actually have done it all at once. No, but once they undertook to perform these duties, Scripture accounts it to them as if they had done them. As the Eternal hath commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they. This is to make known the praiseworthiness of Israel, i.e., that they did exactly as Moses and Aaron told them. Another interpretation: What is the meaning of the words, so did they? It is to teach us that Moses and Aaron also did so.”²⁷⁴Since one of the main purposes of the slaughtering of the lamb was a rejection of the belief in idolatry — see Ramban above, Verse 3 — one might have thought that Moses and Aaron, whose belief in the One True G-d was perfect, were not in need of taking part in this commandment. Scripture therefore informs us, according to this Mechilta, that they did as all Israel did, inasmuch as they so cherished G-d’s commandment. (From the commentary Zeh Yenachmeinu on the Mechilta, mentioned in my Hebrew work, p. 335.) The Rabbis thus expounded first that the repetition [of the phrase, so did they], was in praise of Israel, i.e., that they did not forget [all they were commanded], and that they did not omit anything of whatever was told to them. This is the customary way of the [Sacred] Language in many places.

וילכו ויעשו בני ישראל כאשר צוה השם, The children of Israel went and did as G'd commanded, etc." The Torah had to repeat כן עשו, "they did so," to underline that they obeyed what Moses had commanded them in the name of G'd though they did not understand the meaning of all these regulations. Had the Torah not written the words כן עשו, we could have thought that they did so because they understood it all.

וילכו ויעשו בני ישראל, ”The Children of Israel proceeded and carried out, etc.” They left the assembly and went to get the sheep and slaughtered it etc., as prescribed.

In order to relate the praise. . . [For they did it] even though it was dangerous to slaughter Egypt’s god in front of their eyes.

V. 28. וילכו ויעשו וגו׳ כאשר וגו׳ כן עשו. Mosche und Aaron überlieferten es treu, Israel empfing und erfüllte es treu, und so entsprach Israels Tun vollkommen dem Gebote Gottes. Es vergegenwärtigt dies zugleich, wie von vornherein das Gesetz nur auf Grund mündlicher Überlieferung zur Erfüllung kam. Von den 600 000 Peßachpflichtigen hatten ja nur die Ältesten das Gebot direkt von Mosche, zu den andern gelangte es ja nur durch eine ganze Reihe mittelbarer Überlieferungen, und doch entsprach die Erfüllung vollkommen dem ursprünglichen Gebote Gottes an Mosche und Aaron.

וילכו ויעשו THEY WENT AND DID — Scripture enumerates their going also, to give them a reward for going and a reward for doing (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:25).

כן עשו, “so they did.” It is not unusual for the Torah to repeat something like this when the message is that the instructions were carried out in every detail. Our sages, added that the mention of the Israelites “going,” וילכו, means that they did not only receive a reward for performing the commandment but also for the time and effort spent in the preparatory stages/

Moshe and Aharon, too, did so. [This needed to be stated] otherwise we might think: Moshe and Aharon were not commanded because they did not need to be redeemed; and therefore they did not do so. Thus, the additional phrase of “They [also] did so” teaches us [that Moshe and Aharon also did it.] Otherwise it would be sufficient to say, “The B’nei Yisrael went and did.”

כאשר צוה ה' את משה ואהרן [THEY DID] AS THE LORD HAD COMMANDED MOSES AND AARON — This is stated for the purpose of declaring Israel’s praise — that they did not omit a single matter of all the commandments of Moses and Aaron. And what is the meaning of כן עשו SO DID THEY? Moses and Aaron also did thus!(Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:25).

וה׳ “AND” THE LORD — Wherever it is stated וה׳ “And the Lord” it signifies He and His celestial Court, because the prefix ו expresses an addition, just as one says, “Mr. So-and-so and Mr. So-and-so” (Genesis Rabbah 51:2; cf. Rashi on Genesis 19:24).

וה' הכה, while the Jews were busy with preparing and eating the Passover offering, G’d was busy with killing the firstborn of Egypt and orchestrating the redemption of His people.

בחצי הלילה, while they were eating their Passover offering.

Wherever it states. . . It is written (Bereishis 19:24), “And Hashem made sulfur and fire rain down.” There, Re”m explained that wherever it says “and Hashem,” it means “He and His Divine court,” and enumerated other places where it says, “and Hashem.”

(Exodus 12:29) "And it was in the middle of the night": Its Creator divided it. What is the intent of this? It is written (Ibid. 11:4) "And Moses said (to Pharaoh): Thus said the L rd: When the night is divided (i.e., at midnight) I shall go out into the midst of Egypt." Now is it possible for flesh and blood to ascertain the middle of the night? It must be, then, that its Creator divided it. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: He who knows its hours and its times — He divided it. R. Eliezer says: It is written here "And it was in the middle of the night," and elsewhere (Genesis 14:15) "And they 'divided' against them at night." Just as here the plague did not begin until the middle of the night, there, too, (their attack) occurred in the middle of the night. "and the L rd smote every first-born": I might think through an angel or through an emissary. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 12:12) "and I shall smite every first-born, etc." — not through an angel and not through an emissary. "and the L rd smote every first-born in the land of Egypt": even (those first-born) from different places. And whence is the same derived for the first-born of Egypt (who were found) in different places? From (Psalms 136:10) "Who smote Egypt by their first-born" (wherever they were). Whence do I derive the same for the first-born of Cham, Kush, Put, and Lud? From (Ibid. 78:51) "He smote every first-born in Egypt, the first-fruit of their strength in the tents of Cham." "from the first-born of Pharaoh sitting on his throne": Scripture hereby apprises us that Pharaoh (himself) was a first-born, (the throne passing in succession to the first-born). __ But perhaps the intent is only to teach that his son was a first-born? __ "sitting on his throne" already speaks of his son. Why (the redundant) "from the first-born of Pharaoh"? To apprise us that Pharaoh himself was a first-born. He alone remained (alive) of all the first-born. Of this, Scripture states (Ibid. 9:16) :But because of this I have preserved you, in order to show you My might, etc." (Likewise,) Ba'al Tzefon remained (standing) of all the Egyptian idols in order to raise their hopes. Of such as these it is written (Iyyov 12:23) "He lifts up nations and destroys them." "until the captive first-born": Now what sin did the captives commit (that their first-born should be killed)? So that they not say (if they were spared) "Our god brought this catastrophe upon them ([the Egyptians] for incarcerating us). Awesome is our god, that stood up for itself! Awesome is our god, who shielded us from this punishment!" And we are hereby apprised that the captives rejoiced in all the decrees inflicted by Pharaoh upon Israel, (for which they were punished) in keeping with (Mishlei 17:5) "He who rejoices in (another's) misfortune will not be absolved," and (Psalms 24:17) "Do not rejoice in the downfall of your foe," and (Ezekiel 26:2-3) "Son of man, because Tyre said about (the besieged Jerusalem) 'Heach!' (an expression of joy) — thus said the L rd G d: 'Behold, Tyre, I am (coming) against you, and I will raise up many nations against you, as the sea raises its waves!'" And not only captives alone (were thus smitten), but even men-servants and maid-servants, viz. (Exodus 17:5) "… until the first-born of the maid-servant." "and every first-born of the beast": Now what sin did the beasts commit? (They were smitten) so that the Egyptians not say (if they were spared) "Our god (i.e., the beasts, whom they worshipped) brought this catastrophe upon us. Awesome is our god, against whom this catastrophe did not prevail!"

ויהי בחצי הלילה, “it was precisely at midnight;” actually this paragraph should have been written immediately following chapter 11,verse 10, when the Torah reported that Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites go as demanded by G-d through His agents Moses and Aaron. If the Torah had done so, all the plagues would have been recorded in their proper sequence. The reason why the paragraph about the new moon was inserted in the middle of the list of the plagues was to alert the reader to how the firstborn Israelites escaped that plague when the Destroyer had targeted Egypt.

הכה כל בכור SMOTE ALL THE FIRSTBORN — all: such, also, belonging to another people who happened to be in Egypt (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:29; cf. Rashi on v. 12).

היושב על כסאו, who would have sat on his throne if he had lived.

Because they rejoiced at the misfortune of the Israelites. See above (v. 11:5) for an explanation why two reasons are needed.

בחצי הלילה, וה׳ הכה כל בכור, “at midnight when the Lord smote every firstborn, etc.” elsewhere (Numbers 3,13) the wording used by the Torah about this plague was as follows: “on the day that I smote every firstborn;”Rabbi Yochanan comments on this apparent discrepancy that although G-d smote the firstborn at midnight, the souls of those firstborn were still convulsing in their bodies until morning (Compare Torah shleymah item 499 based on an ancient version of Tanchuma) The reason for this was so that the Israelites would know with what plague G-d had killed the firstborn. Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedot, commenting on the same verse said: whenever a verse or phrase in the Torah commences with the word: 'וה, it refers to Hashem accompanied by His counselors. This teaches that prior to carrying out this punishment the heavenly Court (presided over by Hashem, of course) debated the merits of it. The decree was issued by the entire Court.

מבכר פרעה means FROM THE FIRSTBORN PHARAOH’S — Pharaoh too, was a firstborn, but he alone was allowed to remain of the firstborn; and regarding this it states, (Exodus 9:16) “[But for this cause I have maintained thee in life in order to show thee my power” — i. e. to show thee my power at the Read Sea (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:29).

מבכור פרעה, “commencing with the firstborn son of Pharaoh,” (the highest ranking firstborn). The Torah hints that Pharaoh himself was also a firstborn. If he was killed in this manner it was in order for him to see how, through his obstinacy, a substantial part of the Egyptian males were killed in one single night. (Mechilta Pisscha chapter 13)

עד בכור השבי UNTO THE FIRSTBORN OF THE CAPTIVE — because they rejoiced at the misfortune of the Israelites (Midrash Tanchuma, Bo 7); and a further reason why they were slain is that they should not say, — if they remained alive — it was our god who brought punishment upon our oppressors, the Egyptians (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:29) The firstborn of the handmaid, threatened with death in 40:5 but not mentioned here as having been slain, is included in those stated here to have been slain since it enumerates here (i. e. the terms used here are intended to include everyone) from the most important amongst all of them to the least important, and the firstborn of the handmaid as belonging to the Egyptian people, is certainly more important than the firstborn of the captive (cf. Rashi on 11:6).

היושב על כסאו, “who was meant to sit on Pharaoh’s throne in due course.” We find a similar formulation in Kings II 3,27: ויקח את בנו הבכור אשר ימלוך תחתיו, “he took his firstborn son, the one who was supposed to rule in his stead;”Some commentators understand our verse as the conclusion of a description how G-d employed the four most basic materials in the universe as having had a part in the plagues visited upon Egypt. These elements are; water, wind, fire and earth. The two first plagues involved the use by G-d of the water, i.e. blood in the Nile river basin and the frogs, which had their habitat in water. The next two plagues involving vermin and free roaming beasts were symbolic of the element earth, (dust). The wild beasts are described by the Torah during the six days of creation as תוצא הארץ נפש חיה, “let the earth produce living creatures.” (Genesis 1,24) The two middle plagues, i.e. pestilence and infectious boils (#3 and #6) # 3 was produced through utilizing the air, (wind) i.e. pollution in the air, and #6. The boils were produced through Moses polluting the air with soot of a furnace. The hail and the locusts were initiated through stormy winds. Finally, the plague of killing the firstborn originated in heaven (where human life originated) (The upper waters?) The darkness likewise originated in heaven, where light, the first visible part of the universe, originated. The Egyptians therefore had been punished by all the elements that make up the globe that we live on, including the region known as outer space. These ten plagues had been orchestrated by Hashem, Moses, and Aaron. The first three plagues were the direct result of Aaron and Moses’ staff. They produced changes in the lowest region of our universe by employing the basest of the four elements of which the universe consists. Two were using water and one used earth as its medium. Moses orchestrated the next three plagues, utilising higher ranking elements in the atmosphere, corresponding to the fact that he ranked higher as a prophet than did his older brother Aaron. They were: hail, locust, and darkness. Moses demonstrated his control of the surface of the earth and the airspace surrounding it. G-d orchestrated the four plagues of wild beasts roaming unrestricted and killing. The pestilence killed livestock, just as the plague of killing the firstborn. Finally, the plague of שחין, was orchestrated by Moses, Aaron and Hashem; The former threw soot into the air and Hashem, when the former threw soot (totally sterile matter) “Hashem converted it into most harmful and painful boils on the Egyptians’ skins

ויקם פרעה AND PHARAOH AROSE from his bed,

FOR THERE WAS NOT A HOUSE WHERE THERE WAS NOT ONE DEAD. Rashi comments: “If there was a firstborn there, he died; if there was no firstborn there, the chief person in the house died because he is called b’chor (firstborn), as it is said, I also will appoint him firstborn.²⁷⁵Psalms 89:27. Another interpretation: The Egyptian women led dissolute lives under their husbands and bore children from unmarried young men. Thus they had many firstborn sons, sometimes [as many as] five to one woman, each one being the firstborn to his own father.”
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, the firstborn that died in Egypt were the firstborn of their mothers, and this is why He sanctified in their place all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast.²⁷⁶Further, 13:2. The firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne²⁷⁷Verse 29. was the firstborn to his mother. And such indeed is the custom among kings that the reigning mistress be a virgin, something like it is said in the case of Ahasuerus.²⁷⁸Esther 2:3. But in accordance with the opinion of our Rabbis [who say that the firstborn of a father also died], we shall explain that in Egypt, He smote all their firstborn. That is to say, the firstborn of the father, since he is the first-fruit of his strength,²⁷⁹See Genesis 49:3. and the firstborn of the mother, since he opened the womb, and also the chief person in the house. Yet it was His desire to sanctify in Israel in their place only the firstborn of the mother, because that is a matter more known and of open knowledge. In cattle, only the firstborn of the mother is known at all, and therefore He chose from among all of them only [the firstborn of the mother]. A sort of proof for this [statement of the Rabbis that the firstborn of the father was also smitten] is the verse: And He smote all the firstborn in Egypt, the first-fruits of their strength in the tents of Ham,²⁸⁰Psalms 78:51. for such an expression, [i.e., the first-fruits of his strength], is said only of a male.

ויקם פרעה לילה, Pharaoh rose up during the night, etc. The reason that the Torah mentions "at night," something that was obvious, is that according to the Zohar 2, page 38 that night was as bright as daylight. I have already found an allusion to this fact in Exodus 13,8 where the Torah instructs the Jewish father to tell his sons about the happenings during that night ביום ההוא, "on that day." The Torah means that the father should not fail to mention that one of the things that occurred during that night was that the night turned into day. In the event that we would think that the daylight during that night shone for both the Egyptians and the Israelites, the Torah emphasises that when Pharaoh rose he thought it was night because for him it was dark.

כי אין בית אשר אין שם מת, “for there was not a single house without at least a single human corpse.” This was because not only the firstborn of the father died but also the firstborn of the mother, and in the absence of a firstborn in the true sense of the word, the senior member of the household died. You might therefore have expected that the Torah, when legislating the sanctification of the Jewish firstborn would include the firstborn of the father. The reason this was not done is because the firstborn of the mother is far better known, his birth having been witnessed. [to determine paternity we would need DNA tests, etc., not available at the time. Ed.]

This teaches us that he made the rounds. . . Why did Pharaoh’s servants not wake him up? The plague was mainly on them, as it is written, “For there was no house. . .” The answer is: They had already said, “Send these men out. . . do you not yet realize. . .” (v. 10:7), but Pharaoh did not listen to them. Therefore [they despaired of persuading him and] he needed to wake them. (Nachalas Yaakov)

(Exodus 12:30) "And Pharaoh arose": I might think, in the third hour of the morning, in keeping with the custom of kings. It is, therefore, written "at night." I might think, by (pre-arranged) song; it is, therefore, written "he and all his servants" — whereby we are apprised that he made the rounds of the houses of his servants and roused them, one by one, from their places. "and there was a great outcry in Egypt": as per (Ibid. 11:6) "And there will be a great outcry in the whole land of Egypt, etc." "for there was no house where no one had died": R. Nathan said: Now were there not houses without first-born? __ (The resolution:) If one lost a first-born, he would make an image of him and place it in his house (thinking thereby to preserve him). And on that day the image would disintegrate and be scattered as powder. And that day was as grievous to them as the day of his burial (Thus: "there was no house where no one had died.") And, what is more, the Egyptians would bury them in their houses, and dogs would come and gnaw their way in and would remove the first-born from their crypts and mutilate the corpses. And that day was as grievous to them as the day of burial.

V. 30. לילה, adverbialiter wie גנובת׳ יום וגנובתי לילה. (Bereschit 31, 39) und sonst: Nachts; Pharao rüttelte sich vom Schlafe auf und berief seine Diener und ganz Mizrajim zur wachen Tätigkeit.

כי אין בית, “for there was not a single house, etc.;” the question is raised how it was possible that there were no houses which did not contain a firstborn? (Mechilta section Pessach chapter 13) The fact is that the Egyptians, whenever a firstborn died, displayed a likeness of the deceased in the house he used to live in. At the time when this occurred, each such likeness of a firstborn even if he had died earlier, fell down and broke into pieces, and the inhabitants of the house mourned him as if he had died now. It has also been reported that the place where firstborn had died became infested with mice which dug up the earth where he had been interred. All this caused the survivors to feel the loss of that person as if it had occurred just then.

ויקם פרעה לילה, “Pharaoh arose during the night;” the word לילה here describes a state of mind, both he and his advisors were as if blindfolded with shock. (Compare commentary in Torah sh’leymah, item 526 on this verse)

לילה AT NIGHT and not, as is the way of kings, at three hours in the day (9 o’clock in the morning) (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:30; cf. Berakhot 9b).

An alternate explanation: The Egyptian women were unfaithful. . . This raises a difficulty: Now too, the Egyptians will say that Moshe is a liar, for sons who are not first-born were dying. The answer is: Moshe will tell them that they are all first-born because the women were unfaithful. And all this was in order to show the Egyptians’ lowliness and impurity. (Maharshal)

הוא HE, first — and afterwards עבדיו HIS SERVANTS — this informs us that he went round to the houses of his servants and made them get up (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:30).

And bore children from single, unmarried men. . . Rashi is explaining that רווקים means פנוים (unmarried).

כי אין בית אשר אין שם מת FOR THERE WAS NOT A HOUSE WHERE THERE WAS NOT ONE DEAD — If there was a firstborn there, he died: if there was no firstborn there, then the chief person in the house died because the chief person in the house is called בכור, as it is said, (Psalms 89:28) “I also will appoint him to be a בכור, [the highest of the kings of the earth]” (Mekhilta DeRashbi 12:30; cf. Rashi on 4:22; Pesachim Rabbah, Midr. Vajosha). Another explanation is: the Egyptian women were unfaithful to their husbands and bore children from young men, unmarried, and thus they (the Egyptian men) had many firstborn sons sometimes there were five to one woman, each being the firstborn to his own father (thus there might well be no house in which there was not a firstborn) (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:33).

ויקרא למשה ולאהרן לילה AND HE CALLED FOR MOSES AND AARON BY NIGHT — This tells us that he went round to the entrances leading into the city (i. e. to each different district) crying out, “Where does Moses reside? Where does Aaron reside?” (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:31).

AND HE CALLED FOR MOSES AND AARON BY NIGHT. “This teaches us that Pharaoh went round to the entrances leading into the city, crying out, ‘Where does Moses dwell? Where does Aaron dwell?’” Thus the language of Rashi. Now this happened because Moses and Aaron lodged [close to the vicinity of the palace] that night, [the city of] Egypt, so that Moses’ words would be fulfilled, as he said, And all these thy servants shall come down unto me, and bow down unto me, saying: Get thee out.²⁸¹Above, 11:8. And when Pharaoh came to them, they sent messengers to the land of Goshen where the children of Israel dwelled, giving them permission to leave, and they all assembled in Rameses.²⁸²Verse 37. By that time, it was already well into the day. From there they journeyed with a high hand, with Moses at their lead, as it is said, And they journeyed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the Passover the children of Israel went out with a high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.²⁸³Numbers 33:3. The verse stating, The Eternal thy G-d brought thee forth out of Egypt by night²⁸⁴Deuteronomy 16:1. [is no contradiction], since from the time Pharaoh gave them permission to go — [which was at night] — they are already deemed as “going forth” from Egypt.
And thus the Rabbis have said in the Sifre:²⁸⁵Sifre, Re’ei, 128. See above, Note 209, on the word “Sifre.” “Had they not gone forth out of Egypt only at daytime, as it is said, On the morrow after the Passover the children of Israel went out?²⁸³Numbers 33:3. [How then does Scripture say that we were brought forth out of Egypt by night?]²⁸⁴Deuteronomy 16:1. Simply, this teaches us that the redemption [from bondage] took place at night [although the actual exodus took place during the day].” And in the Gemara of Tractate Berachoth we read:²⁸⁶Berachoth 9a. “All Rabbis agree that the redemption took place at night, as it is said, The Eternal thy G-d brought thee forth out of Egypt by night,²⁸⁴Deuteronomy 16:1. but the actual going forth took place only at daytime, as it is said, On the morrow after the Passover the children of Israel went with a high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.”²⁸³Numbers 33:3.
And some scholars say²⁸⁷Mentioned by Ibn Ezra here. that they went out from [the city of] Egypt at night, and at daytime they went out from the land of Egypt, which is Rameses, for many of them dwelled in the city of Egypt, and they left at night and joined their brothers in Rameses. But this is not correct, since Scripture says, And none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning.²⁸⁸Above, Verse 22. Thus they were forbidden to go out of their homes at all at night. And similarly the Rabbis have said in the Mechilta:²⁸⁹Mechilta on the Verse before us, with changes. A Midrashic text closer to the one Ramban mentions appears in Midrash Tehilim 113:2. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 336. “And he called to Moses, and Aaron by night, and said: Rise up, get you forth. But Moses said to Pharaoh: ‘Thus we have been commanded: And none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning.²⁸⁸Above, Verse 22. Are we thieves that we should go forth at night? We shall go forth only with a high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.’”
Now Onkelos explained²⁹⁰The verse of Deuteronomy 16:1, The Eternal thy G-d brought thee forth out of Egypt by night, was translated by Onkelos thus: “The Eternal thy G-d brought thee forth out of Egypt and did miracles for you at night.” that the miracles which were done for the Israelites on that night make it proper to say that on that night G-d “brought thee forth,” because on account of these miracles, they went forth from Egypt.

ויקרא למשה ולאהרון לילה, "He called for Moses and Aaron at night, etc." The reason that the Torah repeats the word לילה, night, could be that Pharaoh was afraid that inasmuch as he had forbidden Moses and Aaron to see him again on pain of death (10,28), they would use this as an excuse not to see him, fearing it was a trap to give Pharaoh an excuse to execute them. By emphasising the word לילה Pharaoh indicated that he had only threatened them on "the day you will see my face, etc." Since it was night, they had no reason to be afraid. Alternatively, Pharaoh meant that seeing it was dark they would not see his face anyways, and his threat applied only to their seeing his face.

ויקרא פרעה למשה ולאהרן לילה, “Pharaoh called on Moses and Aaron during the night.” Moses made a point of sleeping in the capital that night, in order that his prediction that Pharaoh’s servants would come down to him and humble themselves could come true. When Pharaoh arrived at his abode they sent messengers to Goshen giving permission for the Israelites to leave, whereupon they assembled in Ramses en masse. It was still fully light at the time when they assembled there. From there they proceeded with pomp and ceremony (not as escapees) as described in Numbers As to the apparent contradiction in the verse (Deut. 16,1) הוציאך ה' אלוקיך ממצרים לילה, “that the Lord your G’d took you out of Egypt at night,” this refers to the night when they became free to go, having obtained Pharaoh’s permission. Ibn Ezra writes that the Israelites who were residing in Egypt proper left the same night, whereas they did not cross the border, i.e. the city of Ramses, until the morning following. At that point, they were joined by all the other Israelites who had come to meet with them, having traveled from Goshen. This commentary does not sound plausible, for how could anyone have traveled at night after having been told not to leave their homes until morning as they would expose themselves to danger if they did? Onkelos explains what happens as follows: the miracles which were performed for the Israelites on that night are called by the Torah “G’d took you out of Egypt.” The wording is justified seeing that the departure of the Israelites from Egypt was due to these miracles.

This tells us that he went. . . Otherwise it should say, “He called אל משה , as it does in “Hashem called אל משה (to Moshe) and spoke to him.” But למשה means, “for Moshe.”

(Exodus 12:31) "And he called for Moses and Aaron": We are hereby apprised that Pharaoh made the rounds of Egypt, asking "Where is Moses to be found? Where is Aaron to be found?" "And he said: Arise, go out" — to which Moses replied: We are exhorted to go out only in a throng, viz. (Ibid. 22) "And you, do not go out, etc." Variantly: "And he called to Moses and to Aaron": What is the intent of this? Pharaoh had said to him (Ibid. 10:28) "Go from me." (29) "And Moses said: "True have you spoken" (and in the proper time. Indeed,) "I shall not see your face again." (11:8) "And all these servants of yours will come down to me (Moses), etc." What is the intent of "these"? You (Pharaoh) are destined to be at their head and to come down first — whereby we are taught that Moses accorded honor to the ruler, ("these" being euphemistic for "you"). And thus do we find that the Holy One Blessed be He (Himself) accorded honor to the ruler, viz. (6:13) "And the L rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron and he charged them … to Pharaoh." He charged them to accord honor to the ruler. For thus do we find with Joseph, that he accorded honor to the ruler, viz. (Genesis 41:16) "G d will answer (for) the peace of Pharaoh." And thus with Jacob, viz. (Genesis 28:2) "And Israel strengthened himself and sat up on the bed" (to accord honor to Joseph, the ruler at that time). And thus with Eliyahu, viz. (I Kings 18:46) "And he girded his loins and ran before (King) Achav." And thus with Chananiah, Mishael, and Azaryah, viz. (Daniel 3:26) "Then Nevuchadnezzar approached the door of the burning, fiery furnace and called out: 'Shadrach, Meshach, and Aved-Nego, servants of the Most High — Come out! (Only) then (at the behest of the ruler) Shadrach, Meshach, and Aved-Nego came out of the fire?" And thus with Daniel, viz. (Daniel 6:21) "And when he (the king) approached the den, he cried to Daniel in a mournful voice … (22) (Only) then did Daniel speak with the king, etc." "And he said: Arise and go out": I (Pharaoh) said (Ibid. 10:8) "Who and who are the goers?" and you said (Ibid. 9) "With our youth and with our elders will we go" — "Arise go out from the midst of my people, both you (the adults) and the children of Israel." I said (Ibid. 24) "Only your flocks and herds leave in place," and you said (Ibid. 25) "You, too, shall place in our hands sacrifices and burnt-offerings" — (Ibid. 12:32) "Take as you have spoken and go, etc." "and bless me, too": Pray that this calamity depart from me.

V. 31. צאו מתון עמי heißt ein völliges Fortgehen aus dem Volke. ולכו עבדו besänftigt euren Gott, erfüllt ihm seinen Willen.

ויקרא למשה ואהרן, “he had Moses and Aaron called to the Palace;” seeing that we have been told in 10,28: that Pharaoh had commanded Moses to leave his presence, he was now forced to countermand himself and beg Moses to come to him as soon as possible, as the Torah reported that there was not a single house in which not at least one Egyptian had died. At first glance this statement sounds almost incredible, for surely not every house harboured a firstborn. The Egyptians would mark a house in which a firstborn had died with a portrait or statute of the deceased and put it on a pedestal inside the house in which he had lived as a kind of memorial. On this night all of these had been shattered at the time G-d struck the firstborn. This day now became as tragic for them as the day on which that particular first born had died and they had buried him. This was not all; the Egyptians now buried their most recent dead (firstborn) in their own houses and the dogs found ways to drag out these corpses and to gorge themselves on their flesh. As a result, their relatives felt as badly as they had on the day they had buried them.

גם אתם BOTH YE — the men,

RISE UP, GET YOU FORTH FROM AMONG MY PEOPLE. The intent thereof is that it was a royal command that they go forth at once, “for I will not give you permission to tarry among my people at all, since they are being killed on account of you.”

קומו, צאו!, “get up and get going!” He meant that they should depart without delay seeing that the King had commanded that the people would depart immediately and had refused them the right to perform any more slave labour. He added that they should engage in the worship of their G’d as they had demanded all this time, as an additional reason for them to hurry to do as commanded. It is as if the servants said to Moses and Aaron: “do what he says seeing this is what you waited for all this time!” [this commentary presupposes that the words ויקרא למשה ולאהרן לילה, ”he called upon Moses and upon Aaron at night, did not describe Pharaoh, personally, going to see Moses, but his servants did. Ed.]

One could also interpret this verse by viewing the word לילה as part of Moses' answer. Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, whereupon the latter responded that it was now night, i.e. not the time to conduct negotiations. Moses may have added that G'd had forbidden any of the Israelites to leave their houses during that night (12,22) until morning.

גם בני ישראל AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — the little ones (i. e. בני must be understood literally).

BOTH YE — [i.e., Moses and Aaron], who do the smiting²⁹¹This is unlike Rashi who explained: “Both ye, the men; and the children of Israel, the little ones.” — AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. “All of you go out, and do not tarry here under any circumstance.” This was to fulfill what G-d had said to Moses, He shall surely thrust you hence.²⁹²Above, 11:1.

Upon hearing this Pharaoh said: קומו צאו, "arise and depart." In other words Pharaoh freed the Israelites by this proclamation. The expression קומו, "arise," may even contain a hint of Pharaoh's granting the Israelites a "higher status" than they had possessed heretofore. Bereshit Rabbah 58,8 explains Genesis 23,17 where the field and cave of Machpelah are described as ויקם, having arisen. Whereas previously, before Abraham's purchase, the field and cave belonged to a low-life such as Efron, the field and cave "rose" to a higher status by becoming the property of a man of the calibre of Abraham. At any rate, Pharaoh believed that by declaring the Israelites a free people without any further ado, he could free himself of the plague of the dying of the firstborn. If they did not leave immediately, their continued stay could not be blamed on him.

ולכו עבדו את ה' כדברכם AND GO, SERVE THE LORD, AS YE HAVE SAID — everything shall be as you have said and not as I have said: annulled is what I have said, (5:2) “I will not let you go” (“Arise, go out”); annulled is, (10:8) “who are they that shall go?” (“go, both you and the children of Israel”); annulled is, (10:24) “but your flocks and herds must remain” (“Take also your flocks and herds”) (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:31).

AND GO SERVE THE ETERNAL, AS YE HAVE SAID. Pharaoh said this by way of conciliation so that they would be willing to go forth and listen to him, “since you have been wanting to go to the desert to serve the Eternal.”

Another meaning of the words קומו צאו is that it is an accusation. Seeing that Moses and Aaron had refused to come to Pharaoh, he called upon them to rise from their beds for their own benefit, i.e. "the reason I have called you was so that you should leave the country." Accordingly, Moses and Aaron explained that their failure to get up from their beds immediately was not lack of respect for the king but לילה, G'd had ordered them not to leave their houses during that night.

גם אתם גם בני ישראל, "both you and the children of Israel." Why did Pharaoh say גם, also, already before mentioning that Moses and Aaron were to leave? Besides, why did Moses and Aaron need Pharaoh's permission to leave that he said to them: "depart from amongst my people?" They were not his prisoners! Perhaps the wording of Pharaoh's dismissal reveals that subconsciously he had always wanted to arrest Moses and Aaron. When he now gave orders that the Israelites could leave, he had to first reverse his thinking about detaining Moses and Aaron individually. None of this would have been discernible if the word גם had been used only in connection with the departure of the Israelites as a people.

Still another meaning of this verse is that Pharaoh not only discharged the Israelites but he expelled them. The words גם אתם may then be interpreted thus: "Although you are no longer under my control as slaves, I do not want you to reside in my country any longer." This was a new element. Now the point had been reached of which G'd had said to Moses in 11,1: "when he will finally discharge you completely he will not only discharge you but he will expel you." The words גם בני ישראל refer to the women and the children; the word גם, also, in connection with גם צאנכם in verse 32 refers to the other items such as the animals Pharaoh himself was to supply (compare 10,25).

גם צאנכם גם בקרכם קחו TAKE ALSO YOUR FLOCKS AND HERDS — And what is the force of כאשר דברתם AS YE HAVE SPOKEN? It is an allusion to (10:25) “Thou, also, must give into our hands sacrifices and burnt offerings” — it means: take of my cattle also even as ye said.

AND BLESS ME ALSO. The purport of it is that “when you will sacrifice to the Eternal your G-d as you have said, and you will pray for yourselves that He should not strike you with pestilence or sword,²⁹³See above, 5:3. remember me also in your prayers together with yourselves.”
Now Rashi commented: “Pray on my behalf that I should not die, for I am a firstborn.” The plain meaning thereof is that they should bless him and his kingdom, for included within the blessing to a king is the state of peace of the whole kingdom. And in the Mechilta we read:²⁹⁴Mechilta on the verse before us. “And bless me also. Pray on my behalf that the punishment may desist from me,” meaning that he should no longer be punished on their account.

וברכתם גם אותי, "bless me also." The past tense here is to be interpreted as a wish, i.e. "bless me too." Pharaoh meant that not only should the plague stop but that the result of Moses' blessing should be the process of the rehabilitation of Egypt.

וברכתם גם אותי, as if the Torah had written וגם תברכו אותי, “and also bless me.”

וברכתם גם אותי, “bless me also!” according to the plain meaning of the text, Pharaoh wished to be included in a complimentary fashion in Moses’ prayer for the dying to stop. After all, as we explained earlier, Moses had assured Pharaoh that there would be no further plagues in Egypt. Alternately, he meant that Moses should pray that G’d should not continue to penalize him in any form.

Pray for me that I do not die, for I am a first-born. Otherwise, why would Pharaoh need their blessing, since he sent the people out [and consequently needed not fear further plagues]?

V. 32. וברכתם גם אותי, wie ihr damit für euch Segen erwirket, so erwirket damit auch für mich wieder Segen, dass alle die Wunden, die mir und meinem Lande um euretwillen geschlagen worden, wieder geheilt werden.

גם צאנכם גם בקרכם, “also your flocks and your herds” (you may take with you). The repetition of the word גם is a hint that Pharaoh gave the Israelites also part of his own as well as of his servants’ flocks and herds to take along. Thus Moses’ prediction that not only would the Israelites sacrifice some of these animals for their G-d, but they would include animals formerly owned by Pharaoh and offer these at his request. (Compare 10,25)

וברכתם גם אתי AND BLESS ME ALSO — Pray on my behalf that I should not die because I am a firstborn (cf. Targum Jonathan on Exodus 12:32 and Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:29).

כלנו מתים WE ARE ALL DEAD MEN — They said, Not according to Moses’ decree is this what has happened for he said (10:5) “And every firstborn shall die”, and here all the ordinary people are dead, five or ten in one house (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:33).

ותחזק מצרים על העם, “Egypt imposed itself strongly on the people, etc.” After they had been struck by ten plagues they were forced to dismiss them against their will. Not only that, but the Israelites also took all the Egyptians’ money. This is the meaning of verse 36: “they emptied out Egypt.” This has been confirmed by Midrash Mishley (27,2). When Solomon speaks (Proverbs 27,17) about “as iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the wit of his friend,” the words “iron sharpens iron” refer to Moses the righteous and Pharaoh the wicked respectively. They were opposing each other with words. When Moses entered Pharaoh’s palace, Pharaoh asked him: “who has sent you?” Moses answered: “the G’d of the Hebrews has sent me to you.” Pharaoh countered: “what did he tell you to say?” Moses: “let go of My people so that they will serve Me.” Pharaoh: “Is there then a deity in the world whom I did not know? By all that’s holy, all the deities in the world have sent me letters but your God has not sent me any letter at all.” Seeing that he did not find the name of the G’d of the Hebrews recorded anywhere, he continued: “did I not tell you that I do not know of such a god?” He then sent for his wise men and asked them if they had ever heard the name of a god of the Hebrews. His sages answered that they had indeed heard that once there was a such a god descended from primeval wise kings as referred to in Isaiah 19,11: “utter fools are the nobles of Tzoan, the sages of Pharaoh have made absurd predictions.” Thereupon Pharaoh said to his wise men: “you are the fools. You call yourselves wise and me the son of the wise! I will dispose of your so-called wisdom.” Pharaoh based himself on Isaiah 29,14 “and the wisdom of its wise men shall fail.” Moses countered: “you claim that you do not know the god of the Hebrews. In the end you will get to know Him. You said that you will not dismiss the Israelites. In the end you will most certainly dismiss them against your will instead of willingly.” Let me illustrate what happened by means of a parable. The present situation is comparable to a king who had said to his servant; “go and bring me a certain fish from the market.” The servant went and brought back a smelly fish. Thereupon the king decreed a choice of either of three penalties on this negligent servant. 1) He suggested that the servant himself eat that fish. 2) If he did not like this he could be whipped with a hundred lashes. 3) As a third alternative he was willing to accept 100 silver pieces as payment of a financial fine. The servant started to eat the fish. Before he had finished eating it (forcing himself) he said that he would rather submit to 100 lashes of the whip. By the time he had absorbed 50 lashes he volunteered to pay the fine instead of being whipped some more. This is precisely what G’d did to the Egyptians. They absorbed the plagues, then they did let the Israelites go, and on top of it all they paid the financial penalty when the Israelites took their money. What caused them to suffer all these degradations? Their obstinacy in refusing to acknowledge the existence of G’d. Pharaoh’s obstinacy was countered by Moses’ obstinacy. This is what Solomon had in mind when he spoke of iron sharpening iron.

(Exodus 12:33) "And Egypt bore down upon the people": We are hereby apprised that they hurried them to leave in a panic. "for they said: We are all dying": They said: It is not as Moses said (11:5) "and every first-born in the land of Egypt will die." They had thought that if one had four or five sons only the first-born among them would die — not realizing that their wives were profligate and that they could have borne the first-born of different men. They (their wives) wrought in secret, and the Holy One Blessed be He exposed them! Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in His lesser measure, that of punishment, one who acts in secret is exposed, how much more so will this hold for His greater measure, that of good, (that secret acts of goodness will be blazoned forth)!

כלנו מתים, “we are all about to die;” the word מתים here has to be understood as an activity, i.e. as if the Torah had written: כלנו הולכים ומתים, “we are all progressively dying.” The Egyptians remembered that Moses had warned that if the Israelites could not perform their rituals, their G-d would punish them with the sword and with pestilence (5,3) They reasoned that the G-d of the Hebrews would not only punish the Hebrews who had failed to honour Him (not through a fault of their own) but that He would certainly punish the ones who had prevented them from serving Him. When an Israelite would say to an Egyptian that he should wait until he would give back to him any valuable object that he had “borrowed,” he would tell him not to bother but to keep it. By doing so he hoped that his life would be spared.

טרם יחמץ BEFORE IT WAS LEAVENED — The Egyptians would not allow them to stay long enough for the dough to become leavened.

בצקו, a construction from the root בצק, just as כתפו, “his shoulder,” is derived from the root כתף.

משארותם צרורות בשמלותם על שכמם, “their leftovers bundled up in their garments, flung over their shoulders.” Ibn Ezra understands the word משארותם as referring to wooden bowls used to knead dough in. The word appears in this context in Deuteronomy 28,17 טנאך ומשארתך, “your fruit basket and your kneading bowl.” They flung this over their shoulders as their donkeys were fully loaded with all the fancy garments they had taken from the Egyptians. I find this illogical, for would it not have been simpler for them to place the heavy wooden bowls on the donkeys and to carry the lighter garments on their shoulders?

The Egyptians did not let them procrastinate long enough to become chametz. But [the reason they took it before it was leavened] was not on account of the prohibition against chametz, because for the Pesach in Egypt there was no prohibition against having chametz in the home. Alternatively, Rashi’s comment may be understood as follows. He is answering the question: Why is it written, “Before it was leavened”? It should have said, “Before they baked it.” Therefore Rashi explains: “The Egyptians did not let them. . .” I.e., by writing “Before it was leavened,” the Torah is informing us the extent to which the Egyptians were hurrying B’nei Yisrael.

(Ibid. 34) "And the people took their dough before it leavened": We are hereby apprised that they kneaded the dough, which had not risen to (become) chametz before they were redeemed. And thus (i.e., a similar metaphor) do you find in time to come, viz. (Hoshea 7:4) "they are all adulterers, like an oven fired by a baker, their arousing (the evil inclination) ceasing, (only) from the kneading of the dough until its leavening," (when they commit the act). And (Ibid. 5) "On the day of (the ascension of) our king, the princes took sick with wine, etc." (Exodus 12:34) "their remnants": of matzoh and maror. You say this, but perhaps (the reference is to) remnants of the Paschal lamb? (Ibid. 10) "And you shall not leave over anything of it (the Paschal lamb)" already accounts for the Paschal lamb. How, then, am I to understand "their remnants bound up in their clothes"? As referring to the remnants of matzoh and maror. ("their remnants) bound up in their clothes on their shoulders": R. Nathan says: Were there no beasts there (to carry the remnants)? Is it not written (Ibid. 38) "And also a great multitude went up with them, and flocks and herds"? Why, then, "on their shoulders"? To betoken their love of the mitzvoth.

V. 34. Das V. 15 und weiter gegebene siebentägige Chamezverbot galt nur, wie es V. 14. ausgesprochen ist, für die künftige Gedächtnisfeier der Erlösung. פסה מצרים אין חמוצו נוהג אלא יום אחד, am Erlösungstage selbst war das Verbot höchstens nur für diesen Tag, den 15. Nissan (siehe Peßachim 96 b. und 28 b.) und zwar, wie da ersichtlich, לא יאכל חמץ היום אתם יוצאים, war nur das Essen des Chamez, nicht aber der Besitz untersagt (siehe ר׳׳ץ zum ריף zur Mischna ר׳ג היה אומר וכו׳). Sie hatten daher sowohl das Bedürfnis als die Absicht, sich gehöriges Brot für die Wanderung zu bereiten, allein die drängende Eile der Ägypter litt es nicht (siehe V. 39). — בצק, wohl verwandt mit פסג, wovon פסגה, die Anhöhe: hoch werden, und פשק, strecken: der im Aufgehen begriffene Teig, so auch vom Fuß רגלך לא בצקה: ist nicht angeschwollen. — משארתם scheint von שאר, die Speise, Nahrung, das Speisebereitungsgefäß: der Trog zu bedeuten, wie oben ובתנוריך ובמשארותיך (Kap. 7, 28). —- על שכמם, sie hatten alle andern Habseligkeiten bereits verpackt und auf Lasttiere geladen und waren nur noch mit Brotbacken beschäftigt. Allein so drängend war die Angst der Ägypter, dass man ihnen nicht einmal Zeit ließ, die Tröge mit dem Teig den Tieren aufzuladen. Sie mussten sie so auf die Schultern nehmen und hinauseilen.

צרורות בשמלותם, “bundled up inside their garments.” This line is the reason why we have the practice of wrapping the afikomen” in a serviette or tablecloth after breaking it and saving it for being eaten at the end of the Seder meal.

משארתם (from the root שאר “to be left over”) denotes the leavings (what was left) of the unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:34).

משארותם, the container in which the dough is placed while it is allowed to rise before being baked. We know this from Deuteronomy 28,5 ברוך טנאך ומשארתך, “blessed will be your basket and your kneading bowl.” Just as the טנא is the basket in which fruit are placed, so משארת is the bowl in which the dough is kneaded. The Torah in Deuteronomy uses these two items as prototypes for G’d extending His blessing to the utensils used by the Jewish people in pursuing their daily efforts at securing their livelihood.

What was left of their matzoh and maror. But not what was left of the korbon Pesach, because any leftovers from the korbon Pesach must be burned. [see 12:10]

על שכמם, “over their shoulders.” The donkeys of the Israelites were already loaded with so much “loot” that they could not burden the animals with additional weight.

על שכמם UPON THEIR SHOULDER — Although they took many cattle with them yet they bore this upon their shoulders because the commands of God were so dear unto them (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:34).

על שכמם, “on their shoulder.” They had many animals (which could have served as beasts of burden) as the Torah wrote in verse 38 “and much livestock.” They carried the dough personally to demonstrate their love for the fulfillment of G’d’s commandment.

כדבר משה [THEY DID] ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF MOSES which he had spoken to them in Egypt, viz., (Exodus 11:2) “And let every man ask his fellow…”

עשו כדבר משה, they did in accordance with Moses' instructions. The Torah stresses that the reason the Israelites "borrowed" all this silver, gold, etc., was not because they were greedy for material goods but because Moses had instructed them to. The Torah may also teach us an object lesson in what Maimonides wrote in chapter nine of his Hilchot Yesodey Hatorah that if a prophet orders the people to commit an act which is against Torah law and such an order is of a temporary nature, an emergency situation, the people are to accept the prophet's instructions as long as the violation is not in the realm of idol worship. The people here were not happy about deceiving the Egyptians by making them think they were borrowing these trinkets intending to return them in a few days. Seeing that Moses was a duly accredited prophet, however, they complied with bis instructions in spite of their misgivings.

כלי כסף וכלי זהב ושמלות, “silver trinkets, gold trinkets and garments.” What is mentioned later is more valuable. Gold is mentioned after silver as it is more valuable. The garments were mentioned last as they were the most valuable items, [if only because they were of immediate use. Ed.] (based on Mechilta). We have a parallel in Genesis 12,1 where G’d tells Avraham to leave 1) your country, 2) your birthplace, 3) your parental home. The last-mentioned one was closest to him, hence the most valuable association.

These were even dearer to them than silver and gold. Otherwise, why should “clothing” even be mentioned? If they lent them silver and gold, surely clothing. Thus we [must say: on the contrary,] “these were even dearer. . .” However, the Maharshal explains: Since Hashem did not command them to borrow clothing, perforce it was not so valuable. Hashem said to request only silver and gold, to uphold His promise of, “Afterwards they will leave with great wealth.” They borrowed the clothing on their own, since a pauper who lacks clothing does not look to acquire silver and gold, but coats and shirts. And what does it mean that the clothing was even dearer to the Egyptians? It means that it was a great and serious matter for the Egyptians to lend it to them. This is because the Egyptian clothing and customs were different from those of B’nei Yisrael, so when they lent them clothing they knew it would not be returned since B’nei Yisrael would make alterations to the clothing. Nevertheless, they lent it to them. Therefore Rashi explains that the clothing was “even dearer to them,” i.e., to the Egyptians, but not to B’nei Yisrael. Whereas the silver and gold was not as dear to the Egyptians, since they thought it would be returned.

(Exodus 12:35) "And the children of Israel did as Moses had bid them": Now what had Moses bid them do in Egypt? (Exodus 11:2) "Speak I pray you in the ears of the people that you ask of them, etc." And this is what they did. "and they asked of Egypt vessels of silver and vessels of gold and raiment": Let raiment not be mentioned (i.e., it goes without saying). (It is mentioned) to indicate that raiment was more precious to them than silver and gold. (Ibid. 36) "And the L rd placed the favor of the people in the eyes of Egypt and they lent them>" as the verse implies. R. Yossi Haglili says: They trusted them, saying: If they did not do (i.e., if they did not steal from us) in the three days of darkness when they could easily have taken advantage of our blindness) should they be suspect now? R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: The Holy Spirit reposed upon them and he (a Jew) would say: Lend me your vessel which is found in this and this place, and he (the Egyptian) would find it there and give it to him. "chen" ("favor") is the Holy Spirit, as it is written (Zechariah 12:10) "And I will pour out on the house of David and on the dwellers on Jerusalem a spirit of chen, etc." R. Nathan says: This is not needed (to comprehend the verse). "Vayashilum" connotes that they gave them (even) what they did not ask for. If the Jew said Give me this and this thing, the Egyptian would say: Take it and anything like it. "and they emptied out Egypt": We are hereby apprised that their idols melted and returned to their former state, (so that they were now permitted to take them.) And whence is it derived that the spoils of the (Red) Sea were (even) greater than these? From (Ezekiel 16:7) "… and you increased and grew great and attained to adi adayim" "adi" connotes (the spoils of) Egypt; "adayim" connotes the spoils of the (Red) Sea. And it is written (Psalms 68:14) "the wings of a dove sheathed in silver" — the spoils of Egypt. (Ibid.) "its pinions in fine gold" — the spoils of the (Red) Sea. And it is written (Song of Songs 1:11) "Wreaths of gold will we make for you" — the spoils of the (Red Sea); "with your spangles of silver" — the spoils of Egypt. (Exodus 12:37) "And the children of Israel journeyed from Ramses to Succoth": From Ramses to Succoth was a distance of forty parasangs, and the voice of Moses traveled (the distance of) a forty day journey. And let this not be a cause of wonder to you. For it is written (Ibid. 9:8-9) "And the L rd said to Moses and to Aaron: Take for yourselves your full handfuls of furnace soot … And it shall be dust over all the land of Egypt, etc." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If dust, whose nature it is not to travel, traveled a distance of forty days, how much more so a voice, whose nature it is to travel! In an instant, Israel traveled from Ramses to Succoth, as per (Ibid. 19:4) "And I bore you on eagles' wings, etc." "to succoth": "succoth," ("booths") literally, as in (Genesis 33:17) "And Jacob traveled to Succoth, and for his cattle he made succoth (booths), for which reason the place was named Succoth." These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Akiva says: "succoth" refers to the clouds of glory, as in (Isaiah 4:5) "And the L rd will create on the entire base of Mount Zion and on all of its branchings a cloud by day and smoke with a glow of flaming fire by night, on all the glory, a canopy." This tells me only of the past. Whence do I derive (the same for) the time to come? From (Ibid. 6) "And it shall be a succah to shade the day", (Ibid. 35:10) "And the redeemed of the L rd will return, etc." And the sages say: Succoth is a place, as in (Exodus 13:20) "And they journeyed from Succoth and they encamped in Etham." Just as Etham is a place, so, Succoth. R. Nechemiah says: "Succothah": The (conventional) "lamed" ("to") in the beginning is replaced by a "heh" at the end. (Exodus 12:37) "six hundred thousand men": sixty ten thousands, as in (Song of Songs 3:7) "Behold, the couch of Shlomoh, (acronymically, 'He who spoke and brought the world into being') sixty (ten thousands) of the warriors of Israel" (who left Egypt.) (Ibid. 8) "all of them holding the sword, taught in war," viz. (Numbers 21:14) "whereof it is written in the book of the wars of the L rd, etc." And it is written (Psalms 149:5-7) "Let the saintly exult in glory, let them sing upon their couches, the glory of G d in their throats," and (8) "to bind their kings with shackles," and (9) "to execute upon them the written judgment — glory to all of His saints, Hallelukah!" (Exodus, Ibid.) "aside from the children": aside from the women and children, (another six hundred thousand). These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: Aside from women, children, and the elderly, (each of the four groups consisting of 600,000). (Exodus 12:38) "and also a great multitude": a hundred and twenty ten thousands. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: Two hundred and forty ten thousands. R. Nathan says: Three hundred and sixty ten thousands. "And flocks and herds, a great crush of cattle": Of this the Holy One Blessed be He had said to Abraham (Genesis 15:14) "And after this, they will go out with great wealth." At the exodus, I will fill them with silver and gold. (Exodus 12:39) "And they baked the dough": See above (Exodus 12:34) (Exodus , Ibid.) "ugoth matzoth": "ugoth" are wafers as in (Ezekiel 4:12) "As barley wafers (ugoth) shall you eat it," and (I Kings 17:13) "Make me from them a small uggah." A great miracle was performed for them through the wafers. They ate from them for thirty days until the manna descended. "for they were driven out of Egypt": I might think (that they left) of their own volition. It is, therefore, written ("for they were driven out of Egypt) and they could not tarry." "and provisions, too, they could not make for themselves": to apprise us of the eminence of Israel. They did not say to Moses: How can we venture into the desert with no provisions for the road, but they believed and went after Moses. Of them it is stated in the Tradition (Jeremiah 2:2) "Go and call out in the ears of Jerusalem, etc." What reward did they receive for this? (Ibid. 3) "Holy is Israel to the L rd, etc."

ושמלות AND GARMENTS — These were even more valued by them than the silver and than the gold: the later a thing is mentioned in the text the more valued it is (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:35) (i. e. the fact that silver is mentioned before gold shows that the text is mentioning the objects in the ascending scale of value and consequently the garments, as being mentioned last, must have been most valued by them).

The later in the verse, the dearer. This raises a difficulty: In the verse mentioning “Wheat and barley” (Devarim 8:8), the more important item comes first. The answer is: [Rashi is not stating a general rule. And] here, the more important item cannot be the first one, as then the latter items would not need to be mentioned at all. For if the Egyptians lent the valuable items, surely they would lend the cheap ones. (Maharshal)

וישאלום lit., AND THEY HANDED THEM OVER — Even what they did not ask of them did they give to them: “You say “one” — take “two”, but only go!” (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:35).

וישאילום, וינצלו את מצרים, they let them have what they asked; they emptied Egypt (of valuables). All this was a result of G'd giving the people favour in the eyes of the Egyptians so that the Egyptians lent them these trinkets against their will (the will of the Israelites). This proves that the Israelites were not prepared at that time to leave Egypt permanently else they themselves would have asked not only for what the Egyptians volunteered but for much more in order to enrich themselves. When the Torah writes that: "they emptied Egypt," the subject are the Egyptians themselves. From the above we see how correct the Talmud was in Berachot 9 where it is stated that the Israelites were so enamoured of the idea of leaving Egypt that financial gain did not interest them at that time. As a result G'd helped them acquire great possessions in a miraculous manner. All of this was a reward for their meritorious behaviour. [The author implies that if the Israelites had displayed greed by asking for a lot they never would have received as much as they did. Ed.]

נתן את חן העם, to give them as outright gifts what they asked for. G’d had predicted all of this to Moses already in Exodus 3,21

Even that which they did not request of them. . . [Rashi knows this] because at first it is written, “And they requested of the Egyptians” (v. 35), and then it is written, “Hashem granted the people favor,” telling us that they found favor, and their request was granted. If so, why does Scripture need to write here, “And they granted their request”? It must come to tell you that they gave them even things that they did not request.

V. 36. Obgleich es oben Kap. 3, 22 heißt: ונצלתם וגו׳, so kann doch hier, wo וישאילום vorangeht, dessen Subjekt die Ägypter sind, auch das unmittelbar darauf folgende וינצלו die Ägypter zum Subjekt haben. Israel war durch die in den drei Tagen der Finsternis bewiesene Redlichkeit und Großmut so in den Augen der Ägypter gestiegen, dass sie ihnen mehr gaben, als sie wünschten, ihnen ihre Gaben aufdrängten und sich aller Kostbarkeiten entleerten.

וה' נתן את חן העם, “and the Lord had disposed the Egyptians favourably towards this people;” this is how He fulfilled what He had said to Moses in Exodus 3,21, when He told him that the Israelites would not leave Egypt emptyhanded.

וינצלו The Targum translates this by ורוקינו, AND THEY EMPTIED OUT.

וישאילום. The Egyptians are subject in this, i.e. they lent, or gave outright as gifts, after the Israelites had asked. The Egyptians gave it in such a way that the recipients were not expected to return it to the original owners. In this context, the one who asks for something is considered the active party whereas the one who responds to the request is considered the מפעיל, in this instance the “giver.”

וינצלו את מצרים, the Israelites had asked for precious jewelry and fancy garments which they used to dress up their children in. The expression is used again in Exodus 33,6 after the sin of the golden calf when the Jews had to divest themselves of their jewelry which they had obtained at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai. [at that time it had been jewelry of a spiritual nature, i.e. the phylacteries. Ed.] At any rate, the expression וינצלו refers to jewelry.

מרעמסס סכתה FROM RAMESES TO SUCCOTH — These were distant from one another 120 miles and yet they reached there in one moment, as it is said, (Exodus 19:4) “and I carried you as on eagles’ wings” (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:35 and Rashi on Exodus 19:4).

[The distance between them was] 120 mil. [Rashi knows this] because Scripture did not need to write, “From Ramseis,” since we already know that they were in Ramseis, as it is written in Parshas Vayigash (Bereishis 47:11). Thus, “From Ramseis” is mentioned only to tell us that they traveled a distance of 120 mil in a moment.

To Sukkos. There were about six hundred thousand. They departed Ramseis in such confusion and haste that there was no time to conduct a count. Therefore only when they came to Sukkos was their number known.

V. 37. רגלִי,da es unverändert im Plural bleibt, so scheint es ein Kollektivbegriff zu sein, eine zu Fuß gehende Menge: Fußmannschaft. — Frauen sind nicht genannt, daher scheint auch unter טף nur die männliche Jugend verstanden zu sein. Es ist damit der damals gegenwärtige und künftige Kern der Nation bezeichnet.

ויסעו בני ישראל, “the Children of Israel journeyed;” they covered 120 miles in a single hour. This is what was meant when we read in Exodus 19,4: ואשא אתכם על כנפי נשרים, “I carried you on the wings of eagles.” That particular verse contains the letter ם three times at the end of a word. This is a hint at the number 120. If we needed a further reminder, the numerical value of the words על כנפי also amounts to 120. (Attributed to הרב משה).

ויסעו בני ישראל מרעמסס סוכותה, “The Israelites journeyed from the city of Ramses in the direction of Sukkot.” The whole people first had first assembled in Ramses; this was the city where they had performed most of their slave labour in that year [before the onset of the plagues when they had taken a “rest.” Ed]

הגברים ADULT MALES — from twenty years old and upwards (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 3:6).

Who were twenty years and older. [Rashi knows this] because in Parshas Bamidbar, the males are counted from twenty years and older, and the number is similar to this one — and both counts were taken within one year. We cannot suggest that here they were counted from thirteen years old, because then the count in Parshas Bamidbar would be less, as they would not all turn twenty within one year. Thus, the count here must have been from twenty years and older.

Besides the children. The word taf actually includes women and the elderly as well as children. It is derived from the word tafel, meaning “ancillary”.

סכותה, Rabbi Nechemyah said that the suffix ה in this word substitutes for the missing prefix ל.

ערב רב A MIXED MULTITUDE — a mingling of various nations who had become proselytes.

וצאן ובקר, of the mixed multitude who were leaving Egypt with the Israelites to take up residence among them together with all their belongings.

ערב רב, an expression describing a mixed assortment, as we find it in Psalms 106,35 ויתערבו בגוים, “they mixed freely with the gentiles, assimilated.”

עגת מצות means a cake of (made of) unleavened dough (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:35); dough which has not become leavened is termed וגם צדה לא עשו להם

AND THEY BAKED UNLEAVENED CAKES OF THE DOUGH. The meaning thereof is that they baked unleavened bread of the dough because of the precept which they were commanded: There shall be no leaven found in your homes, for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel.²⁹⁵Above, Verse 19.

כי לא חמץ, it had not had time to rise and ferment due to the short period of time it took to get from Ramses which was still part of Egypt to Sukkot which was already beyond the boundary of Egypt. Our sages in the Haggadah shel Pessach described the experience in the following words: “the dough of our forefathers did not have time to rise and become leavened during the brief time it took for the Lord our G’d to manifest Himself and to redeem them.” The reference of the author of the Haggadah is to the appearance of the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire as soon as the Israelites had reached Sukkot and left Egyptian soil behind the, This was the manifestation of the Lord G’d of whom he speaks. The Torah there begins to speak of G’d walking in front of the Israelites (Exodus 13,21).

מצות כי לא חמץ, unleavened breads because it was not leavened. The Torah means that the reason they baked Matzot was that they did not have permission to eat leavened bread; as a result they had to hasten in order to bake מצות. These loaves turned out to be matzot even though some time had elapsed between the kneading of the dough and the baking. Possibly, they kept the dough in motion in order to prevent it from becoming leavened. When the Torah bothered to graphically describe that "their kneading bowls were slung as bundles in their dresses over their shoulders" (verse 34), such a description would not be justified unless we were to learn something from it. Surely the Israelites had some other place where they could have carried their dough. The Torah wants to teach us that they deliberately vibrated the dough to keep it from rising. The process was facilitated by the fact that they had not added yeast to the dough in the first place. The Torah describes that the reason the dough did not have a chance to become leavened before the Exodus as being: "for they were being expelled from Egypt."

עוגות, for the term bread applies only to dough which had been baked in an oven. [According to our author on Exodus 29,2 anything baked in an oven is called לחם, bread, even if it contains a fair amount of oil. Ed] Seeing that this “bread” had not been baked in an oven but was baked by the sun, it is not called לחם, but עוגה, “cake.”

ויאפו את הבצק אשר הוציאו ממצרים עגות מצות, “(as a result) they baked the dough they had brought out of Egypt into flat cakes of unleavened bread.” This was done deliberately, in order to fulfill the negative commandment that anyone eating leavened goods on that day will be subject to the karet penalty. If, judging by the words כי גורשו ממצרים, the impression was created that the dough was baked by the heat of the sun on the basis that the Israelites had flung the dough over their shoulders, this is not meant to give the impression that if the Israelites had remained in Egypt any longer that this dough would have risen, become leavened, but it explains why it was baked while they were en route, and not in their homes before their departure. Alternately, the plain meaning may be that the reason why it turned into unleavened cakes was because they did not have time to bake it in the regular way prior to their departure as they were literally being expelled. Had they been allowed sufficient time, these cakes would have been leavened.

This is what is explicitly told in the Prophets. The word קבלה refers to the Prophets.

V. 39. כי לא חמץ, so eilig wurden sie getrieben, so unausgesetzt blieben sie in starker Bewegung, dass selbst auf dem Wege der Teig noch nicht חמץ geworden. — גרשו ממצרים und גם צדה לא עשו להם, dieses Faktum, daß sie aus Mizrajim gejagt wurden, so gejagt, dass sie nicht einmal das nötige Brot sich bereiten konnten, dass somit im Momente ihres Auszuges ihrerseits der Auszug ein unfreiwilliger war, das drückt für ewig diesem Auszug den Stempel reiner Göttlichkeit auf und macht das חמץ-Verbot und die Mazza zu einem Symbol so bedeutsamer Tragweite. Ohne dieses Denkmal hätten Israels Nachkommen in dem Auszuge nur einen Sieg der Erhebung ihrer Väter, nur ein menschliches Ereignis, wie so viele andere in der Weltgeschichte, erblicken können. Wir hören soeben, daß es 600000 rüstige Männer gewesen, da wäre die Befreiung kein Wunder, ein Wunder nur wäre gewesen, dass diese so lange einen so unmenschlichen Druck geduldet. Allein da erzählt uns die Mazza, wie die Väter aus Mizrajim getrieben wurden, gejagt wurden, so gejagt, dass sie nicht einmal Brot sich fertig bereiten konnten, sie hätten sich gerne nur noch so lange als מלוש בצק עד חומצתו, als zum Fertiggären des Teiges gehört, aufgehalten, allein sie konnten es nicht, es stand nicht in ihrer Macht, die Mizrer litten es nicht, sie waren also noch im Momente des Auszuges ganz wie bisher in der Macht ihrer Dränger, und über beide — wie über die Mutter und das Kind im Momente des Kreißens — war allein Gott in seiner Allmacht gebietend!

כי לא חמץ, “for it had not become leavened.” According to the view expressed by one sage in the Talmud, tractate Peaachim folio 28, that the Israelites observed Passover in Egypt only for a single day, this makes perfect sense; however, according to the opinion that Israelites had been commanded to eat unleavened bread at that time for seven days, what is the meaning of the words: כי גורשו, “for they had been expelled?” We must explain what is written as follows: when the Torah writes that they baked the dough, that they did so immediately because these loaves were not to be allowed to become leavened. On top of that they had been unable to equip themselves with provisions because they had been expelled, i.e. had been under great pressure and could not tarry any longer. Nonetheless, the word וגם is a little difficult, although we find unnecessary letters וalso in Psalms 76,7, and many other places.

ויאפו את הבצק, “they baked the dough;” they did this at Sukkot, which was their first waystation.

.מצה NEITHER HAD THEY MADE FOR THEMSELVES ANY PROVISION for the journey. This is stated to tell how praiseworthy Israel was: that they did not say, “How can we go forth into the wilderness without provisions?” But they had faith and set forth. This it is that is referred to more explicitly in the prophets: (Jeremiah 2:1) “I remember for thee the affection of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, how thou wentest after me in the wilderness in a land that was not sown”. What reward is afterwards set forth there? “Israel is the Lord’s hallowed portion etc.” (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:35).

כי לא חמץ, it had not become fermented. This formulation, i.e. as an adjective, is also found in connection with Pharaoh when the Torah spoke about כבד לב פרעה, usually translated as “Pharaoh’s heart was tough,” when what is meant it that Pharaoh toughened his heart. Similar constructions are found in Genesis 27,14 אהב אביו, “his father had come to like.” The same is true of Kings I 1,1 והמלך דוד זקן, which though we normally translate this as “and King David was old,” really means “King David had allowed himself to age.” These formulations which sound like mere adjectives, are more than that, they describe what led to the present state of something or somebody.

BECAUSE THEY WERE THRUST OUT OF EGYPT. The sense of it is that they baked the dough on the road because they had been driven out of Egypt, and could not wait to bake it in the city and carry the unleavened bread. Therefore they carried the dough, and their kneading-troughs were bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders,²⁹⁶Verse 34. and they hurried and baked it before it was leavened²⁹⁶Verse 34. on the road, or in Succoth,²⁹⁷Verse 37. where they arrived in a short while as our Rabbis have said.²⁹⁸Mechilta here: “In the twinkling of an eye, the children of Israel travelled from Rameses to Succoth.”

כי גורשו מצרים, “for the Egyptians had literally been expelling them; ”עוגות מצות, into matzah cakes. Why did the Torah bother to give us these details? In the future observance of the Passover would become conditional on a number of rituals having been observed before one could participate in that celebration. The Torah explains that on this occasion the only requirement had been that they eat unleavened bread, and the Passover “festival” was a one day affair due to the Egyptians having chased the Israelites out of their homes. We commemorate this during the Seder evening by breaking the middle matzah and reciting “this broken matzah is the symbol of how our forefathers the Israelites observed Passover in Egypt.”

וגם צידה (לדרך) לא עשו להם, this is why in short order they would have to complain of the need for bread and water. [seeing that they had not been given an opportunity to take along provisions. Ed.]

אשר ישבו במצרים WHO ABODE IN EGYPT after the other settlements (i. e. including those also) which they had made as strangers in a land that was not theirs (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:40).

NOW THE TIME THAT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DWELT IN EGYPT WAS FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS. “From the birth of Isaac till now there were four hundred years. [We must reckon from that event, for only] from the time that Abraham had a child [from Sarah] could the prophecy, that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs,²⁹⁹Genesis 15:13. And they shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years. be fulfilled. And there had been thirty years since that decree made at the ‘covenant between the parts’³⁰⁰Ibid., Verse 18. until the birth of Isaac. And when you will reckon the four hundred years from the birth of Isaac, you will find that from the time they came into Egypt, until the time they left, it was two hundred and ten years.” Thus the language of Rashi, and it is also the opinion of our Rabbis.³⁰¹Bereshith Rabbah 44:21. “That thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs. This means [that the four-hundred year period will begin] from the time seed will be seen by you.”
The explanation, however, is not correct in every detail. It is written, And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran,³⁰²Genesis 12:4. and the event of the “covenant between the parts”³⁰⁰Ibid., Verse 18. took place a long time after that.³⁰³And from the “covenant between the parts” until the birth of Isaac, as Rashi stated, thirty years elapsed. How then is it possible that Abraham was one hundred years old at the birth of Isaac (Genesis 21:5) if he was seventy-five years old when he left Haran, and the covenant took place long after his departure from Haran? We must therefore explain the case satisfactorily in accordance with what we have been taught in the Seder Olam:³⁰⁴Literally: “Order of the World.” This is an historical chronicle of events from the time of creation to the destruction of the Second Temple. It was authored by Rabbi Yosei ben Chalafta, a disciple of Rabbi Akiba. The text quoted here is found in Chapter 1. “Our father Abraham was seventy years old when G-d spoke to him at the ‘covenant between the parts,’ as it is said, And it came to pass at the end of four hundred and thirty years … that all the hosts of the Eternal went out from the land of Egypt.³⁰⁵Verse 41 here. “And you cannot find four hundred and thirty years unless the “covenant between the parts” took place thirty years before the birth of Isaac” (Yaakov Emden, in his commentary on the Seder Olam). Then he returned to Haran and stayed there five years, as it is said, And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.”³⁰²Genesis 12:4. The sense of the verse then is to state that when Abraham finally left Haran, his native land, never to return again to his father’s house, he was seventy-five years old.³⁰⁶And the “covenant between the parts” accordingly took place five years before his final departure from Haran, since from the time of the covenant to the birth of Isaac, as Rashi stated, thirty years had passed.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, it is my opinion that G-d said to Abraham, “Know of a surety that before I give you this land, thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs for a long time — four hundred years.” He did not care to mention the additional thirty years³⁰⁷Ramban thus introduced a new explanation to help solve the problem, which was as follows: Since in Genesis 15:13, the length of the exile was foretold to be four hundred years, how is it that Scripture mentions here in Verse 40 an additional thirty years? Rashi answered that the four-hundred year period represents the time from Isaac’s birth till the exodus, and the additional thirty years represent the preceding years that elapsed between “the covenant between the parts” and the birth of Isaac. Accordingly, we were forced to say that the covenant took place five years before Abraham’s final departure from Haran. Ramban suggests that the intent of the verse in Genesis 15:13 is also four hundred and thirty years, for although the additional thirty years are not clearly written in the verse, they are nevertheless alluded to, as is explained further on. In his commentary on the following verse, Ramban will revert to this theme for further elucidation. to him [i.e., Abraham], because He told him further on, And in the fourth generation they shall come back hither,³⁰⁸Genesis 15:16. thereby informing him that they will not come back immediately at the end of four hundred years until the fourth generation when the sin of the Amorite will be full.³⁰⁸Genesis 15:16. Thus He alluded to these thirty years, for the Israelites’ staying in the desert for forty years was not on account of the sin of the Amorite not yet being full, [since the four hundred and thirty years were completed at the time of the exodus; their stay in the desert was on account of their own misdeeds].
Accordingly, the purport of the verse [before us] is as follows: Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was until four hundred and thirty years, since they lived there in order to fulfill the period of time set [for Abraham’s seed] to live in a land that is not theirs. Thus Scripture informed us that now when they went forth from Egypt, the exile decreed upon them was completed. He brought them forth from servitude to [complete] freedom, and it was not that He took them out from Egypt and they were yet to be strangers in a land not their own. Now because He has already mentioned this matter and informed us thereof [in the section of the “covenant between the parts”], there was no need to prolong it [here], for this verse [here] is intended only to inform us of the thirty years that were added to [the four hundred years mentioned specifically to Abraham]. This is why He says it briefly, i.e., that in Egypt were completed the four hundred years mentioned to their father Abraham and known to them, and an additional thirty years. Then He reverts and says, And it came to pass at the end of four hundred and thirty years³⁰⁹Verse 41. of their exile, they went out from the land of Egypt to perpetual freedom.
A similar case is the verse, And the days in which we came from Kadesh — barnea, until we were come over the brook Zered were thirty and eight years.³¹⁰Deuteronomy 2:14. This is to complete the reckoning. The journey from Kadesh–barnea to the brook Zered did not take thirty-eight years. Instead, they abode in Kadesh many years,³¹¹Ibid., 1:46. and then they journeyed from there and turned back by the way to the Red Sea,³¹²Ibid., 2:1. and in the thirty-eighth year they went over the brook Zered. The purport of the verse is thus: and the days in which we came from Kadesh-barnea, until we were come over the brook Zered were until thirty and eight years had passed. Similarly: Happy is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days³¹³Daniel 12:12. means [happy is he who waits and reaches] the end of those days, not the days themselves.

אשר ישבו במצרים שלושים שנה וארבע מאות שנה, the sum of 430 is arrived at by commencing the count from the time G’d took Avraham out of Ur Casdim in order to conclude the covenant of the pieces with him. During that conversation with Avraham, G’d had specifically taken credit for taking Avraham out of Ur Casdim, (generally understood as saving him from the fire of Nimrod’s furnace when Avraham had been a voluntary martyr for his belief in the G’d of heaven. Genesis 15,7) This is the reason why the author of Seder Olam, an ancient historical text, describes Avraham as having been 70 years old at that time.

ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים (עד סוף) שלושים שנה וארבע מאות שנה, counting from the time when G’d spoke to Avraham at the covenant between the pieces. At that time Avraham was 70 years of age (according to Seder Olam). On the other hand, the “400 years” commenced when Avraham had fathered Yitzchok at 100 years of age. I have explained all this in my commentary on the covenant of the pieces.

ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים שלשים שנה וארבע מאות שנה, “ According to Rashi we have to divide up these years into the thirty years between the promise to Avraham of his children inheriting the land of Canaan after a period of being strangers or slaves or both, and the birth of Avraham’s son Yitzchok who would be the carrier of his name, and the 400 years commencing with that time, Yitzchok himself being a stranger in the land of Canaan, moving about and not owning any land. Rashi bases himself on an ancient Midrash. (Mechilta, also Bereshit Rabbah 44,21) according to which the last 210 of these years commenced with the arrival of Yaakov in Egypt. Nachmanides writes that this appears incorrect, seeing that as long as Avraham was alive we cannot perceive any of his children as having been in exile. The meaning of the promise in Genesis 15 is simply that G’d told him that his descendants, before this promise would be fulfilled, would experience many years of exile and even slavery, the period in question extending over 400 years. G’d, at the time did not bother to inform Avraham about the extra 30 years we read about here, seeing that He had already told him that taking over the land of Canaan had to await the time when the accumulated sins of the Emorite would spill over the allotted measure, so that G’d could legally dispossess them. Accordingly, the period that the Children of Israel dwelled in Egypt, (starting with the descent of Yaakov, or with the arrival of Joseph 22 years earlier) are 430. The 30 years are a hint that the extra years, just as the years spent in the desert, were not a period during which the measure of the Emorites’ sin had not yet been complete, but this delay was solely due to the sins of the Israelites themselves. The verse before us simply informs us that the duration of the stay of the Israelites in the land of Egypt until the allocated time was up was 430 years. The last 30 years had nothing to do with the promise/decree announced by G’d to Avraham in Genesis chapter 15. We find a similar construction in Deuteronomy 2,14 והימים אשר הלכנו מקדש ברנע עד אשר עברנו את נחל זרד שלשים ושמונה שנה עד תם כל הדור אנשי המלחמה וגו, “The number of years which we walked from Kadesh Barnea until we crossed the river Zered were 38 years, until the entire generation of men of military age had died, etc.” The Israelites who had been encamped for 19 years at Kadesh Barnea (according to all our sources) certainly did not wander another 38 years in the desert. Moses describes simply that the entire period beginning with the decree that the men of military age at the time of the sin of the spies would die in the desert, until the last of these men had died, took 38 years. We must learn from all this that when someone sinned and a penalty such as exile is decreed for him during which he is not free to live his life according to his own agenda, this does not automatically mean that at the end of the exile he will be free to do as he pleases during the remainder of his life. If he becomes guilty of any additional offence, he will, of course, be punished for such an offence separately. The promise to Avraham by G’d that his descendants would eventually inherit the land of Canaan and that it would take 400 years for that promise to be fulfilled, simply meant that it would not be less than 400 years. It did not mean that at the end of those 400 years possession would become automatic. If the Torah therefore speaks of 430 years having elapsed during which the Israelites had dwelled in the land of Egypt, this means that the extra years had been added on by G’d on account of serious sins committed by Avraham’s descendants. The promise to Avraham was, that as compensation for the 400 years of waiting for the redemption, these people would leave the land of their oppression (remember that no specific country had been named) with great material possessions. The word אחרי, “after,” mentioned in chapter 15 of Genesis, hardly ever means “immediately after.” Furthermore, there are no promises by G’d which are so ironclad that they could not become null and void if the recipient became guilty of a major sin prior to the time the promise was due. [the exceptions are promises worded as an oath.] It is common knowledge that the Israelites, while in Egypt, were guilty of numerous and serious sins, including the cardinal sin of not circumcising their male babies. Ezekiel chapter 20 recounts a list of such sins by the Israelites committed both in Egypt and subsequently in the desert. It is therefore easy to understand why G’d added 30 years to the number of years originally decreed. In fact they should have stayed still longer, had it not been for the communal prayer in which for the first time in over 80 years the Israelites pleaded with G’d, as described in Exodus 2,23, and G’d’s responding in The Jewish farmer, when offering the first fruit of his respective crops recites a prayer/blessing during which he refers to G’d’s response to the people on that occasion. (compare Deuteronomy chapter 26. In verse 6 the farmer confesses that while in Egypt the Egyptians made sinners out of our people, i.e. וירעו אותנו המצרים. We all know that even after the Exodus, G’d was forced to delay arrival in the Holy Land and taking possession of it by another 40 years to give Him time for the Jewish people to replenish themselves as the generation who left Egypt had forfeited seeing G’d’s promise fulfilled in their lifetime. As a result, the fourth generation which should have returned to the land of Canaan did not do so, except for Calev and Joshua, and children who had been under 20 at the Exodus

ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים, “and the habitation of the Children of Israel during which they dwelled in Egypt, etc.” We find three separate sets of numbers for the ending of the exile and subsequent departure from Egypt. They are either 400 years, 430 years, or 210 years. The 400 years are calculated from the time Avraham’s descendants became strangers and experienced various problems either within the land of Canaan or outside of it. This was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis 15,13: “they will serve them or even oppress them for 400 years.” These 400 years include both periods of being strangers and periods of being slaves. The 430 years are calculated since the birth of Yitzchack. [This is hard to understand though it appears in various manuscripts. Ed.] The 210 years refer to the length of the Jews’ stay in Egypt proper.
You will note that the Bible also gives three dates for the ending of the exile in the future (Daniel). The dates mentioned there are 1150 (years) 1290 (years) 1335 (years). We read in Daniel 8,13-14: “Then I heard a holy being speaking, and another holy being said to whoever it was who was speaking, ‘how long will what was seen in the vision last, the regular offerings be forsaken because of transgression, the sanctuary be surrendered and the heavenly host be trampled?’ He answered me: ‘for twenty-three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.’” The days and nights were calculated separately so that the number corresponds to the number 1150 mentioned earlier. “Days and nights” are years. We also have a verse (Daniel 12,11) “from the time the regular offering is abolished, and an appalling abomination is set up, it will be a thousand and two hundred and ninety days.” Immediately afterwards it is written: “happy the man who waits and reaches one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.” The reason G’d mentioned three different “ends” of the exile in Egypt all of which corresponded to he truth was to make it easier for us to bear the long exile we find ourselves in nowadays. We must believe that the three separate dates given in the Book of Daniel are also all true, though we have not yet figured out precisely how to understand each number. We may be certain of one thing. If we deserve it the redemption will occur on the earliest of the three dates mentioned, if not on the middle one or the last one. It is impossible for the redemption to occur later than the last date described in Daniel. Thus wrote Rabbeinu Chananel.

And thirty years passed from when the decree of “between the pieces” was decreed. . . Re”m explains in Parshas Lech Lecha that Avraham was seventy at the decree of “between the pieces,” and so it says in Seder Olam.

ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים, we find in connection with the redemption from Egypt 3 different dates of termination all of which relate or appear to relate to the same event. The numbers are: “400 years,” i.e. the prediction in Genesis chapter 15 to Avraham; we find the number 430 years in our verse here. Finally, we have the number 210 years. In order to reconcile these numbers we must remember that the number 400 refers to the time from the birth of Yitzchok. Seeing G’d’s promise to Avraham concerned “his descendants,” any count could not begin until Avraham had such descendants, i.e. Yitzchok. G’d had told him that his descendants would be known through Yitzchok, (not through Ishmael or the sons of Keturah) The number 430 begins with the date when Avraham had been told about his future by G’d at the covenant between the pieces in chapter 15 in Genesis. The number 210 were the years during which Avraham’s descendants were not free men living in what would become their own country in the future. During the latter 86 years of these 210 years they were cruelly enslaved and abused. During the first 124 years of their stay in Egypt, until the death of the last surviving brother of Joseph they enjoyed freedom in Egypt.
It is interesting that we find three dates about the redemption in the future mentioned also in the Book of Daniel. There we are told about 1) 1150 years; 2) 1290 years; 3) 1335 years. I am quoting from the first mention of redemption in Daniel 8,13-14: “Then I heard a holy being speaking, and another holy being said to whomever it was he was speaking to: ‘how long will what was seen in the vision last- the regular offering be forsaken because of transgression, the sanctuary be surrendered and the heavenly host be trampled?’ He answered me: “for twenty thee hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be cleansed.” Seeing that mornings and evenings were counted as separate, what are meant are half this number i.e.1150 years.
It is further recorded there in chapter 12,11 that from the time the regular offering had been abolished and an appalling abomination had been set up in its place it will be one thousand two hundred and ninety days. Immediately after this, in verse 12 we read: “happy the one who waits and reaches one thousand three hundred and thirty five days.”
It had been G’d’s plan that the Exodus from Egypt would be described in terms of 3 separate conclusions, extremities. The reason was that G’d wanted to offer us who are awaiting the final redemption increased hope that it will eventually materialize. Having known that all three dates (prophecies) concerning the date of the redemption had come true, we would be encouraged in our faith that the promise held out in the Book of Daniel will also come true even if we appear to be at a loss to understand these numbers in advance of their becoming history.
One thing we can be pretty sure about: G’d allowed Himself fall back positions, as He has always done since the time He created man on earth, so that if we deserve to be redeemed earlier than G’d’s timetable foresaw He would be able to take advantage of that number. In the Torah too, G’d had not irrevocably decided beforehand that the redemption could not occur until the date it did occur, or even earlier.

(One verse (Exodus 12:40) states "And the habitation of the children of Israel in the land of Egypt was four hundred and thirty years," and another, (Genesis 15:13) "and they shall serve them and they shall afflict them four hundred years." How are these two verses to be reconciled? Thirty years before the birth of Isaac, the covenant between the pieces (at which the above was said) was made, (and after his birth until the exodus four hundred years elapsed.) Rebbi says: One verse states: "and they shall serve them and they shall afflict them four hundred years," and another, (Ibid. 16) "and the fourth generation will return here." How are these two verses to be reconciled? If they repent, I will redeem them by generations (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes). If not, I will redeem them by years. "And the habitation of the children of Israel in Egypt and in other lands was four hundred and thirty years." This is one of the verses that they (the seventy-two elders changed) in transcribing (the Torah) for King Ptolemy, viz. (Megillah 9a): Once King Ptolemy assembled seventy-two elders and placed each in a separate house (without telling them why he was doing so), and he said to each of them: "Transcribe for me [into Greek] the Torah of Moses your teacher." The Holy One Blessed be He placed goodly counsel in the heart of each, and they all wrote as one (Genesis 1:1): "G d created in the beginning" [so that Ptolemy could not structure the words as: "In the beginning, god was created."] [They wrote] (Ibid. 1:26): "I will make a man in image and form" [and not, literally: "Let us make a man, etc.", so that he would not be able to argue for a plurality of gods]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 2:2): "And He finished on the sixth day, and He rested on the seventh day" [and not, literally: "And G d finished His work on the seventh day," so that he could not argue that G d worked on the seventh day]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 5:2): "Male and female He created him" [and not, literally: "Male and female He created them" (which Ptolemy could use as an argument for the creation of two separate bodies)]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 11:7): "Let Me go down and confound their tongue" [and not, literally: "Let us go down", so that he would not find support for his polytheistic views]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 18:12): "And Sarah laughed bikrovehah" ["among her neighbors", and not, literally: "bekirbah" ("within her"), so that Ptolemy would not question why Sarah should be punished for laughing, and not Abraham, if they both laughed inwardly]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 49:7): "For in their wrath they killed an ox" [instead of: "a man" (so as not to give Ptolemy a pretext to call Jews murderers)], "and in their willfulness they razed a manger" [instead of: "an ox"]. [They wrote] (Exodus 4:20): "And Moses took his wife and his sons and he rode them on the bearer of men" [instead of "on the ass" (so that he not say that Moses lacked a horse or a camel)]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 12:40): "And the sojourning of the Jews, their dwelling in Egypt and in other lands was four hundred years." [(and not just: "their dwelling in Egypt," as per the verse, which would be open to dispute by Ptolemy's reckoning)]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 24:5): "And he sent the dignitaries of the children of Israel" [lest "youths" be taken demeaningly]; (Ibid. 11): "And to the dignitaries of the children of Israel, He did not stretch forth His hand." [They wrote] (Numbers 16:15): "Not one desirable object of theirs" [(instead of, literally: "Not one ass of theirs")] have I taken" [thus preventing Ptolemy from contending that it was only an ass that Moses had not taken]. [They wrote] (Deuteronomy 4:19): ["all the host of heaven …] which the L rd your G d bequeathed for illumination to all the peoples under the heavens" [and not, as in the verse: "which the L rd your G d bequeathed to all the peoples under the heavens," thus preventing him from construing this verse as a license for idolatry]. [They wrote] (Ibid. 17:3): "and he go and serve other gods … which I did not command to serve" [instead of, as per the verse: "which I did not command", lest he misconstrue it as: "which I did not command to exist" (and which "forced themselves" into creation against My will)]. And instead of (Leviticus 11:6): "And the arneveth (hare) […it is unclean to you"], they wrote: "the slender-legged"; for Ptolemy's wife was called "Arneveth", and Ptolemy would [otherwise] say: "The Jews have poked fun at me and put my wife's name in the Torah!" (Megillah 9a) (Exodus 12:41) "and it was at the end of four hundred and thirty years": We are hereby apprised that when the time arrived, the L rd did not delay them for one moment. On the fifteenth of Nissan the ministering angels came to Abraham to apprise him (that Isaac would be born); (on the fifteenth of Nissan he was born) and on the fifteenth of Nissan the decree went forth (in the covenant) between the pieces, it being written "And it was at the end" — there was one end for all of them. "and it was on this very same day that all the hosts of the L rd went forth": (The Shechinah, too, went forth with them.) And thus do you find, that whenever Israel is in bondage, the Shechinah is with them, viz. (Exodus 24:10) "And they saw the G d of Israel, and under His feet, as the work of a sapphire brick" (the sign of that bondage). And what is written of their redemption? (Ibid.) "and as the appearance of the heavens in brightness." And it is written (Isaiah 63:9) "In all of their sorrows, He sorrowed." This tells me only of communal sorrows. Whence do I derive (the same for) those of the individual? From (Psalms 91:15) "He will call upon Me and I will answer Him; I am with him in sorrow," and (Genesis 39:20-21) "And Joseph's master took him and placed him in the prison house … and the L rd was with Joseph, etc.", and (II Samuel 7:23) "… before Your people whom You have redeemed from Egypt, a nation and its G d." R. Eliezer says: Idolatry passed with Israel in the sea, viz. (Zechariah 10:11) "And a 'rival' passed in the sea, and struck waves in the sea." Which was that? The idol of Michah (viz. Shoftim 17:4). R. Akiva said (on II Samuel 7:23): Were it not explicitly written, it would be impossible to say it, Israel saying before the L rd, as it were, "You redeemed Yourself!" And thus do you find, that wherever they were exiled, the Shechinah was with them. They were exiled to Egypt — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (I Samuel 2:27) "Did I not reveal Myself to your father's house when they were in Egypt? They were exiled to Bavel — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Isaiah 43:14) "For your sake I was exiled to Bavel." They were exiled to Eilam — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Jeremiah 49:38) "and I set My throne in Eilam." They were exiled to Edom — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Isaiah 63:1) "Who is This coming from Edom, His garments crimsoned, from Batzrah?" And when they return in the future, the Shechinah will be with them, viz. (Devarim 30:3) "And veshav the L rd your G d." It is not written "veheshiv" ("He will return" [you]), but "veshav" ("He [Himself] will return.") and it is written (Song of Songs 4:8) "With Me from Levanon (the Temple), My bride (Israel); with Me from Levanon come." Now is she (Israel) coming from Levanon? Is she not ascending to Levanon? (The intent is: You and I were exiled from Levanon) and we will ascend) together) to Levanon.

V. 40. Es heißt nicht: ושלשים שנה וארבע מאות שנה ישבו בני ישראל במצרים, sondern: ומושב אשר ישבו וגו׳. Nun heißt מושב nirgend sonst die Zeitdauer des Wohnens oder Sitzens, sondern durchweg die Örtlichkeit des Wohnens oder Sitzens, Wohnsitz, Sitz. Einmal heißt es auch die Art des Sitzens. So bewundert die Königin von Seba beim Salomo (1. Kön. 10. 5.) מושב עבדיו ומעמד משרתיו: die Art und Weise, wie seine Diener an seine Tafel gesetzt und seine Bedienten um seine Tafel gestellt waren. Wir glauben daher, auch hier den Sinn dahin verstehen zu dürfen: Dieselbe Art des Aufenthaltes, wie Israel in Mizrajim gewohnt, hatte vierhundertdreißig Jahre gedauert. Unmittelbar zuvor erfahren wir den letzten und prägnantesten Zug aus dieser Art des Aufenthaltes: sie wurden mit dem unfertigen Teig auf der Schulter aus dem Lande gejagt; in diesem einzigen letzten Moment konzentrierte sich noch das עברות, גרות und ענוי ihres Aufenthaltes in ungeschwächter Mächtigkeit. Und nun heißt es weiter: Dieses Fremdsein im Lande, das ihren Aufenthalt in Mizrajim charakterisierte, und alle die Ungeheuerlichkeiten erzeugte, hatte eigentlich vierhundertdreißig Jahre gedauert. So lange war Israel bereits als Fremdling, ohne berechtigte Heimat auf Erden, und es datiert dieses Geschick bis zu dem Augenblick zurück, in welchem ihrem Stammvater Abraham, der selbst ja als Fremdling auf fremdem Boden lebte, das Verhängnis des noch Jahrhunderte andauernden גרות angekündigt worden. Von Isaaks, des ersten זרע אברהם Geburt an waren vierhundert Jahre, von dem Tage an, an welchem das verhängnisreiche: ידוע תדע כי גר יהי׳ זרעך וגו׳ gesprochen worden, waren vierhundertdreißig Jahre verstrichen. Von Jakobs Einzug in Ägypten waren zweihundertzehn Jahre verflossen. Wenn, nach einer Überlieferung, die Siegesnacht Abrahams, ויחלק עליהם לילה (Bereschit 14, 15) die Nacht vom 14. auf den 15. Nissan gewesen, so kann jenes Verhängnis im ברית בין הבתרים am 15. Nissan ausgesprochen worden sein, und darin das בעצם היום הזה des folgenden Verses seine Erklärung finden.

שלשים שנה וארבע מאות שנה FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS — Altogether from the birth of Isaac until now were 400 years, and we must reckon from that event, for only from the time when Abraham had offspring from Sarah could the prophecy (Genesis 15:13) “Thy offspring shall be a stranger” be fulfilled; and there had been 30 years since that decree made at “the convenant between the parts” until the birth of Isaac. It is impossible to say that this means that they were 430 years in the land of Egypt alone, for Kohath was one of those who came into Egypt with Jacob (Genesis 46:11); go and reckon all his years and all the years of Amram his son and the whole eighty years of Moses, the latter’s son, until the Exodus and you will not find that they total to so many; and you must admit that Kohath had already lived many years before he went down to Egypt, and that many of Amram’s years are included in the years of his father Kohath, and that many of the 80 years of Moses are included in the years of his father Amram, so that you see that you will not find 400 years from the time of Israel’s coming into Egypt until the Exodus. You are compelled to admit, even though unwillingly, that the other settlements which the patriarchs made in lands other than Egypt come also under the name of “sojourning as a stranger” (גרות), including also that at Hebron, even though it was in Canaan itself, because it is said, (Genesis 35:27) “[Hebron] where Abraham and Isaac sojourned”, and it says, (Exodus 6:4) “[the land Canaan], the land of their sojournings wherein they sojourned”. Consequently you must necessarily say that the prophecy, “thy offspring shall be strangers… [four hundred years]” began only from the time when he had offspring. And only if you reckon the 400 years from the birth of Isaac will you find that from the time they came into Egypt until the time they left it, was 210 years (as alluded to in Genesis 15:13). This was one of the passages which they altered for king Ptolemy (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:40; Megillah 9a).

ויהי מקץ שלשים שנה וגו' ויהי בעצם היום הזה AND IT CAME TO PASS AT THE END OF THE 430 YEARS … EVEN ON THE SELF-SAME DAY — The addition of the latter phrase tells us that as soon as the predetermined end of the bondage arrived the Omnipresent did not detain them even as long as the twinkling of an eye (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:42). For on the fifteenth of Nisan the ministering angels had come to Abraham to announce to him the promised birth of Isaac, and on the fifteenth of Nisan Isaac was born, and on the fifteenth of Nisan the decree “between the parts” relating to Israel’s slavery was made.

ויהי מקץ שלושים שנה, It was at the end of 430 yers, etc." The Torah does not tell us what happened at that time, otherwise why would the word ויהי be repeated immediately afterwards. If the Torah had alluded to the time of the Exodus the second ויהי would be superfluous. Another thing requiring exegesis is what painful element is alluded to in the word ויהי in this instance.

ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים (עד סוף) שלושים שנה וארבע מאות שנה, after the birth of Yitzchok. At any rate, out of these 400 years the Israelites resided in Egypt for only 210 years at the tail end of the 430 years mentioned at the beginning.

V. 41. כל צבאות ד׳, wie schon wiederholt bemerkt, ward Israel als eine Vielheit von charakteristisch verschiedenen Volksstämmen begriffen, die alle in ihrer gesonderten Eigentümlichkeit sich um den einen Herrn und Führer scharten.

Perhaps the painful element referred to is the very length of time it took for the people to be redeemed. Had they possessed the necessary merit they would not have had to wait until the pre-arranged timetable, i.e. מקץ, the end of the time originally allocated for their bondage. Alternatively, the pain alluded to is the very length of the 430 years mentioned earlier as the time the people sojourned in Egypt.

ויהי בעצם, it was on that same day, etc. The Torah may use the expression to tell us that though the Israelites departed on that day, the troubles of the Egyptians had not come to an end. We have a reference to the Egyptians being busy on that day burying their dead (Numbers 33,4) whereas at the same time the Israelites left Egypt their heads held high.

ליל שמרים IT WAS NIGHT OF WATCHING [UNTO THE LORD] — a night which the Holy One, blessed be He, was watching for and looking forward to, that He might fulfill His promise להוציאם מארץ מצרים TO BRING THEM OUT FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT.

IT WAS A NIGHT OF WATCHING UNTO THE ETERNAL FOR BRINGING THEM OUT FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT. The verse is stating that from the time He decreed the exile upon them, He observed the matter that He bring them out on that night once the end had come, for I will hasten it in its time.³¹⁴Isaiah 60:22. It may be that the verse, It was a night of watching unto the Eternal, means that He was watching and looking forward to the night when He would bring them out from the land of Egypt, for the Holy One, blessed be He, looked forward to the time when they would merit to be brought out therefrom.
Now if we are to say [as Rashi did, quoted in the commentary on Verse 40], that the [period referred to in] the verse, that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs,²⁹⁹Genesis 15:13. And they shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years. begins from the time that Abraham had seed, and that the reckoning [of the four hundred and thirty years] begins from the birth of Isaac, you will find that they stayed in Egypt two hundred and forty years, according to the explanation we mentioned.³¹⁵Thus: Isaac was sixty years old when Jacob and Esau were born (Genesis 25:26). When he stood before Pharaoh, Jacob was one hundred and thirty years old (ibid., 47:9). We thus have one hundred and ninety years since the birth of Isaac. Deduct them from the sum of four hundred and thirty, and you have two hundred and forty years remaining for the stay in Egypt. But this too in my opinion is not correct according to the plain meaning of Scripture, since all the days of Abraham cannot be counted as exile with respect to his seed.
The correct interpretation is that He was saying to Abraham “that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs … four hundred years²⁹⁹Genesis 15:13. And they shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years. from this day on.”³¹⁶I.e., from the time of the “covenant between the parts.” According to Ramban, who is now following the simple meaning of Scripture, this covenant took place after Abram had left Haran when he was seventy-five years old or thereabout. Thus at the time of the covenant, Abraham was about eighty years old, and not seventy, as we reasoned before according to Rashi. (See beginning of Verse 40.) The purport thereof was to tell him: “your children will not immediately inherit this land which I give them, but instead they will be strangers like you were, in a land not theirs [for a period of] four hundred years and more. They will not return here till the fourth generation³⁰⁸Genesis 15:16. when four hundred and thirty years will be completed.” But if so, then their stay in Egypt lasted about two hundred and twenty years or thereabouts.³¹⁷According to Ramban’s interpretation, Abraham was about eighty years old at the time of the covenant. (See Note above). It was twenty years from then until Isaac’s birth, since Scripture states that Abraham was one hundred years old when Isaac was born. Isaac was sixty years old when Jacob was born, and when Jacob stood before Pharaoh, he was one hundred and thirty. Thus we have two hundred and ten years. Deduct them from four hundred and thirty, and you are left with two hundred and twenty, which is the length of time they stayed in Egypt. Now if the numerical value of the word ‘r’du’ (get you down) thither,³¹⁸Genesis 42:2. These were Jacob’s words to his sons upon sending them to buy food in Egypt. He did not use the word l’chu (go you), but r’du (get you down), because the numerical value of the word r’du is two hundred and ten. There was thus an allusion here to the time the Israelites would stay in Egypt. [which is two hundred and ten], be an established tradition in Israel, it is possible that [Jacob, by using the word r’du], alluded to those who arrived in Egypt that after Jacob’s death they would stay there two hundred and ten years. With the seventeen years that Jacob lived in the land of Egypt,³¹⁹Genesis 47:28. their stay altogether totalled two hundred and twenty-seven years.
And I have already mentioned³²⁰Ibid., 15:13 (in Vol. I, Seder Lech Lecha, p. 203). the explanation of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra that the expression, that thy seed shall be a stranger, means “in servitude and affliction until the end of a four-hundred year period commencing from this day of the covenant.” And Ibn Ezra further said that the thirty additional years [mentioned here in Verses 40-41] represent the time that elapsed between Abraham’s departure from his country³²¹I.e., his native country, Ur of the Chaldees. From there he went with his father to Haran, where they stayed five years, and then Abraham left for the land of Canaan. He was then seventy-five years old. Twenty-five years later when Isaac was born, the thirty year period, commencing from the time he left Ur of the Chaldees, was thus completed (Ibn Ezra). [and the day of the covenant]. Accordingly, the explanation of the verse here is as follows: “Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt until the end of the period when they and their ancestors were strangers in a land not theirs, was four hundred and thirty years.”
I maintain further that the most lucid explanation of all is that we say that the decree of the four-hundred year period, [as mentioned in Genesis 15:13], is to be reckoned from that day [of the “covenant between the parts],” as we have mentioned, and these thirty additional years — [in Verses 40-41 here] — were due to the sin of that generation. If exile and affliction are decreed upon a person for a year or two because of his sin and he will fully continue to add to his transgressions, exile and visitation of seven times³²²See Leviticus 26:28. the original magnitude will be his lot; his first punishment is no guarantee against his being punished for the additional sin he committed. Now it had been decreed upon Abraham that his children would be strangers in a land not their own [for a period of] four hundred years, and that they will not return until the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full.³⁰⁸Genesis 15:16. Abraham was given no assurance [concerning the precise ending of the exile], except in the promise, And afterward they will come out with great substance,³²³Genesis 15:14. and that [“afterward”] could be immediately [after the four-hundred year period] or some subsequent time. Even that promise was given conditionally, as He said, And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they come out with great substance,³²³Genesis 15:14. meaning that He will bring them to judgment to determine whether they did to Israel in accordance with their deeds and as was decreed upon them.³²⁴For fuller explanation of this point, see Vol. I, pp. 204-205. Besides, no assurance is immune to annulment because of subsequent sin unless it is accompanied by an oath. And it is a known fact that the Israelites in Egypt were wicked and exceeding sinners, having also done away with circumcision, as it is written, And they rebelled against Me, and would not hearken unto Me; they did not every man cast away the detestable things of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt; then I said I would pour out My fury upon them in the midst of the land of Egypt.³²⁵Ezekiel 20:8. Again it says, And put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River, and in Egypt, and serve ye the Eternal.³²⁶Joshua 24:14. It was for this reason that He prolonged their exile for thirty years.
In fact, it should have been prolonged even more, but on account of their cries and many prayers, [it was shortened to thirty years]. This is the sense of the verses: And the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto G-d;³²⁷Above, 2:23. And G-d heard their groaning,³²⁸Ibid., Verse 24. And now, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto Me.³²⁹Ibid., 3:9. And it further states, And we cried unto the Eternal, the G-d of our fathers, and the Eternal heard our voice, and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression,³³⁰Deuteronomy 26:7. since they did not deserve to be redeemed on account of the end [of the four-hundred year period], but only because He accepted their cry and their groaning on account of the great agony they were in, as I have explained in Seder V’eileh Shemoth.³³¹Above, 2:25. Why should the earlier scholars — [i.e., Rashi and Ibn Ezra] — find it difficult to explain that their exile was prolonged after the end [of the four-hundred year period] by thirty years, when on account of the sin of the spies their stay in the wilderness was later prolonged forty years!³³²Numbers 14:34. Those forty years were indeed an affliction to them, as Scripture states, And thou shalt remember all the way which the Eternal thy G-d hath led thee these forty years in the wilderness, that He might afflict thee.³³³Deuteronomy 8:2. And it further says, And He afflicted thee, and suffered thee to hunger.³³⁴Ibid., Verse 4. Thus they were subject [in the wilderness] to complete exile in a land given over to serpents, fiery serpents, and scorpions,³³⁵Ibid., Verse 15. and the promise, And in the fourth generation they shall come back hither,³⁰⁸Genesis 15:16. was not fulfilled in them, since during those forty years, that generation surely passed away after the [fifth] generation was already born. Thus the sins caused all delays.
It is possible that this [delay of the thirty years] was on account of the children of Ephraim who went out [from the land of Egypt] thirty years before the coming of Moses our teacher, and as our Rabbis have mentioned.³³⁶Sanhedrin 92b. They reckoned [the end of the four-hundred year period from the time it was declared to Abraham], and they made no error, but his own iniquities shall ensnare the wicked.³³⁷Proverbs 5:22. In other words, the children of Ephraim were accurate in their reckoning. However, they failed to know that on account of the sins of the generation, thirty years had been added to the length of the bondage. And may the Holy One, blessed be He, forgive us all sin and error.

ליל שמורים הוא לה' להוציאם, the night G’d had been looking forward to, to take the Jews out from there. G’d had not caused the Israelites all this suffering in Egypt out of caprice, just in order to keep to a timetable of His, but He simply had not found them ready and worthy of redemption until that particular night. He had reserved this night for that event because He is so full of loving kindness. This is what our sages meant when they stated that G’d was מחשב את הקץ, He had manipulated history in order to bring about the redemption so much earlier than even the Israelites had thought it would come, based on the prophecy to Avraham. (Haggadah shel Pessach.)

ליל שמורים הוא לה׳ It was a night of vigil for G׳d, etc. The verse refers specifically to those miracles G'd performed at night. 1) In the days of Abraham when the latter defeated the four kings with his 318 men at night (Genesis 14,15); 2) during the Exodus when G'd is reported to have killed the firstborn at midnight (12,29). 3) In the days of Hezekiah when the angel Gabriel smote the army of Sancheriv on that night (Kings II 19,35). 4) In the days of Mordechai and Esther when the king could not sleep (Esther 6,1). 5) The redemption of the Jewish people in the future.

ליל שימורים הוא לה', G’d had been anticipating this night ever since the days of the patriarchs in order to have the opportunity to lead the Jewish people out of Egypt. For the Jewish people, on the other hand, this night now became a night to be remembered

A vigil (or “Stored up”) … for all the B’nei Yisrael. Because this was the time of Yisrael’s first redemption it was “stored up” for them for all generations as an auspicious time for deliverance from every type of affliction.

ליל שמורים, “a night of fulfillment of anticipations.” According to Ibn Ezra, G’d stood watch during that night and did not allow the destructive force to enter the homes of the Jews. This is why He commanded that in future the beneficiaries of His standing watch, i.e. His people, should observe that night by observing a special watch. This is the appropriate manner of thanking the Lord and praising Him for what He did for us. Nachmanides queries, saying that the language, i.e. שמורים הוא לה' להוציאם מארץ מצרים, “it is a night of special watch in order to take them out from the land of Egypt,” is not compatible with an interpretation that restricts the verse to saving the lives of the Jews from the destructive forces that abounded on that night. He therefore interprets the word שמורים as a reference to the conclusion of a watch over the fate of the Jewish people from the time when the covenant between the pieces was concluded with Avraham 430 years earlier. It is also possible to understand the word ליל שמורים as summing up all the strenuous efforts G’d had had to make in order to ensure that by that night the Jewish people would be on a spiritual level that would justify their redemption for all time.

It is continuously protected from destructive forces. Rashi is answering the question: What does “this night remains a vigil for all generations” mean? Surely, this actual night of the Exodus does not remain forever. Rashi answers: “It is continuously protected.” I.e., every year when this night comes, it is protected from destructive forces.

(Exodus 12:42) "It is a night of guarding for the L rd … it is this night for the L rd": On it they were redeemed; on it they are destined to be redeemed. These are the words of R. Yehoshua. R. Eliezer says: On it they were redeemed; but they are destined to be redeemed only on Tishrei, as it is written (Psalms 81:4) "Blow the shofar (of redemption) on the month (of Tishrei), (when the moon) is covered, on the day of our festival" (Rosh Hashanah). Why? (Ibid.) "for it is a statute for Israel, etc." And what is the intent of (Exodus , Ibid.) "It is this night for the L rd"? It is this night on which the Holy One Blessed be He said to our father Abraham: "On this night I will redeem your children," and when the time arrived, the Holy One Blessed be He did not delay (to redeem them) even for an instant. "guarded for all the children of Israel": We are hereby taught that all of Israel are destined to be "guarded" upon it (in halachic observance of the Pesach.)

V. 42. שמורים, kommt in dieser Form nur hier vor. Der Piel bezeichnet die intensive, die Pluralform die quantitative Stärke der Hut: Auf diese Nacht war Jahrhunderte lang die sorgfältigste und mannigfaltigste, alle seine צבאות erhaltende und erziehende Waltung Gottes gerichtet, in ihr ein Volk zum Träger seiner Absichten für die Menschheit hervorgehen zu lassen. Diese Nacht wird fortan für Gott diesem Volke überantwortet, auf sie ihre sorgfältigste, mannigfachste Aufmerksamkeit gerichtet zu halten, um die in ihr empfangene Aufgabe mit aller Hingebung alle Folgegeschlechter hindurch zur Verwirklichung zu bringen. Sie war eine ליל שמורים לד׳ und sie wird nun eine ליל שמורים לכל בני ישראל לדורותם, zur Verwirklichung der Gotteszwecke: לד׳!

'ליל שמורים הוא לה, “it is a night of vigil for the Lord;” this is a reference to how G-d protected the Israelites from being harmed by the Destroyer when He struck Egypt. It is also a night of vigil for the Israelites for all future generations, a night on which they should not go to sleep; this is an allusion to the story told in the haggadah about the five scholars in Bney Brak who spent the whole night reminiscing about that night.

'הוא הלילה הזה לה IT IS THIS NIGHT OF THE LORD — it is the night of which He said to Abraham, “On this night will I redeem your children” (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:42; cf. Rashi on Genesis 39:11).

THIS SAME NIGHT IS A NIGHT OF WATCHING UNTO THE ETERNAL FOR ALL THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL THROUGHOUT THEIR GENERATIONS. The intent of this is “that this night set aside by G-d to bring Israel out of Egypt is unto the Eternal. That is to say, it is to be sanctified to His Name. [It is] a night of watching for all the children of Israel throughout their generations, meaning that they are to observe it by worshipping Him through the eating of the Passover-offering, the remembering of the miracles, and the reciting of praise and thanksgiving to His Name,” just as He said, And thou shalt keep this ordinance.³³⁸Further, 13:10. The Hebrew v’shamarta (and thou shalt keep) is of the same root as shimurim (watching) here. And He further said, Observe the month of Aviv, and keep the Passover.³³⁹Deuteronomy 16:1. Here too the word shamor (observe) is of the same root as shimurim in the verse before us. It thus proves that leil shimurim (a night of watching) means “a night of observance of the Passover service.”
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained that the intent of the expression, It was a night of watching unto the Eternal, is that G-d watched the Israelites and did not suffer the destroyer to come into their homes. This is not correct, since Scripture continues to state, It was a night of watching… for bringing them out from the land of Egypt.

הוא הלילה הזה לה' שמורים, just as G’d had looked for ways and means to bring the redemption to the Jewish people from their suffering in Egypt, so He is looking for legal ways and means to redeem us from the present exile and to bring on the final redemption. Isaiah phrased this asולכן יחכה ה' לחננכם, “Truly, the Lord is waiting to show you grace.” (Isaiah 3018)

לרורותם, for all their future generations. The expression

הוא הלילה הזה לה' שמורים לכל בני ישראל לדורותם, “this was the night for Hashem of protection for all the Children of Israel throughout their generations.” This night which Hashem had kept His eye on during all these many years, had become sanctified now as associated forever with His name as Hashem.

Concerning the miracle in Abraham's time, the Torah says here "it was a night of vigilance for G'd," because G'd had demonstrated His truth as mentioned in Bereshit Rabbah 42. According to the Midrash there were some people who did not believe that G'd had saved Abraham from Nimrod's furnace in Ur Kasdim at the time. When they heard about how Abraham defeated these four kings, they changed their minds. The verse goes on to say "to take them out of Egypt," a reference to what happened during this night; the words הוא הלילה, are an allusion to the night in the future when G'd would smite the army of Sancheriv. The allusion to what would happen in the time of Mordechai and Esther is contained in the words הזה לה׳, whereas the reference to the redemption of the future is provided by the words שמורים לכל בני ישראל לדרותם, i.e. at the end of the exiles, may it happen soon.

שמורים, the first time this word appears it describes an event awaited that had not yet occurred; the second time it describes commemoration of an event that occurred in the past. An alternate interpretation: the expression: ליל שמורים is a reminder to observe the anniversary of that night, and warns us not to forget to eat the Passover on that night. The root שמר occurs elsewhere in that context also, for instance: תשמרו להקריב לו במועדו, “be mindful to offer it at its appointed time.” (Numbers 28,2, the daily communal offering)

שמרים לכל בני ישראל לדרתם [IT IS A NIGHT] OF PROTECTION FOR ALL THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL THROUGHOUT THEIR GENERATIONS — this night is protected, and comes as such from ages past, against all destructive forces, as it is said, (v. 33) “And He will not permit the destroyer [to enter your houses]” (Pesachim 109b; Rosh Hashanah 11b).

לכל בני ישראל לדורותיכם, in accordance with the statement of our sages in Rosh Hashanah 11 “just as the Israelites have been redeemed from Egypt in the month of Nissan, so the final redemption will also occur during the month of Nissan.”

שמורים, represents an element of “waiting for something.” It is used in this sense in Genesis 37,11 ואביו שמר את הדבר, “his father waited to see what would happen in this matter.”

זאת חקת הפסח THIS IS THE ORDINANCE OF THE PASSOVER — This chapter was spoken to them on the 14th day of Nisan.

AND THE ETERNAL SAID UNTO MOSES AND AARON: THIS IS THE ORDINANCE OF THE PASSOVER. “This chapter was related to them on the fourteenth day of Nisan.” Thus the language of Rashi. This is correct, since at the end of this chapter it is written, Thus did all the children of Israel, as the Eternal hath commanded,³⁴⁰Further, Verse 50. attesting concerning them that they and their servants were circumcised, [as this is a prerequisite for eating the Passover-offering].³⁴¹Verses 44 and 48. But if so, Scripture should have logically mentioned this chapter before the section, And it came to pass at midnight.³⁴²Above, Verse 29. But the reason [the section of the ordinance of the Passover is placed here] is as follows: The chapter of This month shall be unto you the beginning of months³⁴³Ibid., Verse 2. was said on the first of the month.³⁴⁴Pesachim 6b. Immediately on that day, Moses fulfilled his mission, [as it states], Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them,³⁴⁵Above, Verse 21. meaning that he commanded them concerning the ordinance of the Passover [mentioned here], and he assured them that they will be redeemed on the night of the fifteenth day [of Nisan]. They believed, and the people bowed the head and worshipped.³⁴⁶Ibid., Verse 27. To this account Scripture adjoined the section, And it came to pass at midnight,³⁴²Above, Verse 29. in order to state that He fulfilled the promise He made to them. On finishing this section, Scripture then reverts to the first theme in order to complete the ordinance of the Passover.
This chapter adds many commandments [concerning the Passover-offering]: the prohibitions of an alien or an uncircumcised Israelite eating thereof, the prohibitions of removing the flesh thereof from where it is eaten and of breaking any of its bones, and the law of the Passover-offering of a proselyte. These commandments applied immediately and for all generations.³⁴⁷Unlike certain other laws which applied only to the Passover-offering in Egypt. (See Ramban above, Verse 24 and Note 267). Then Scripture completed the section by saying that the children of Israel did all this; as G-d commanded… so did they.³⁴⁰Further, Verse 50. It uses the expression, all the children of Israel,³⁴⁰Further, Verse 50. in order to explain that there was not one person who transgressed the command of G-d concerning all these matters [mentioned here in the section beginning, This is the ordinance of the Passover], as well as all He commanded regarding the laws of the Passover mentioned in the sections above.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that this chapter dealing with the Passover of the generations, [as distinguished from the Passover of Egypt], was said after the Passover of Egypt, and the verse, Thus did all the children of Israel,³⁴⁰Further, Verse 50. refers to the Passover in the wilderness, which they observed in the second year after the exodus.³⁴⁸Numbers 9:1. [Although it should logically precede the Passover in the wilderness, according to Ibn Ezra] it is written here because of the general commandment [on the Passover here], the case being similar [to that of the jar of manna which Aaron was to put up before the Testimony in the Tabernacle, of which Scripture says], And Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, for a charge.³⁴⁹Further, 16:34. [This account should logically follow that of the building of the Tabernacle, but instead it was mentioned in the chapter dealing with the manna in order to complete the subject.]
This opinion [of Ibn Ezra here] is a mistake. The commandments in all these chapters deal only with the Passover of Egypt and the Passovers which they were to observe in the Land of Israel, as it is said above, And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the Land, etc.³⁵⁰Above, Verse 25. The Passover in the wilderness, however, was a commandment only for that particular time.³⁵¹I.e., only for the second year after the exodus. During all other years in which they were in the wilderness, they did not sacrifice the Passover-offering (see Joshua 5:5), although the other laws of the Passover were of course, observed.

זאת חקת הפסח, for the generations following the Exodus. The Torah legislates where it is to be eaten, by whom, how, when, etc. Only the requirement to put the blood of the sacrificial animal on the doorposts and to eat it in haste, ready for marching, were commandments applicable to the first such offering. All the other ordinances would apply for all future times. (compare Pessachim 96)

ויאמר ה׳…זאת חוקת הפסח, G'd said: "this is the statute of the Passover, etc." It is puzzling why this verse does not follow the usual procedure of introducing a direct commandment, i.e. "speak to the children of Israel, etc." According to what we wrote on verse 3 that this paragraph was said on the 14th of Nissan there was no need to write: "speak to the children of Israel" because it is a continuation of what is written in verse 3, i.e. "speak to the whole community, etc." We must explain then why this paragraph is not recorded as part of what Moses said in that verse. The answer is that this whole commandment is designed for observance of the Passover in future generations only, hence it was revealed after the Exodus. The principle reason for the legislation is to inform Israel that every detail mentioned here is essential for performance of the Passover in the future.

זאת חוקת הפסח, “this is the decree of the Passover offering.” Ibn Ezra says that the whole paragraph deals with the observance of the Passover in future generations, claiming that the words ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח (verse 50) refers to the observance of the Passover in the year following, in the desert, as described in Numbers The matter is not surprising as the Torah also commanded Aaron to save the manna in a bottle, almost 40 years before this was done, although it is reported already in Exodus How could Aaron be reported, in the past tense, as having deposited this bottle next to the Holy Ark, when there had not yet been a Holy Ark at that time, in fact the legislation of building a Tabernacle had not yet been given? Nachmanides disagrees, claiming that in none of the paragraphs other than in Numbers were the Israelites commanded how to observe these rites in the desert. He points out that prior to the performance of the circumcision of all the males, the Torah had to record the legislation about all uncircumcised males not being allowed to partake of the meat of that sacrifice. Actually, this paragraph should have been written prior to the paragraph describing the killing of the firstborn, however, seeing that paragraph about the new moon, etc., was written (announced) on that very day. Moses told the people immediately and he commanded them regarding all the laws of the Passover. He added numerous other commandments, such as the prohibition of idolaters eating from the meat of that sacrifice, he added what had occurred in the middle of that night, assuring the people that on that night they would be redeemed. He told them that the Exodus that would occur on that night would change their status for all future generations. When completing this interlude, the Torah reverts back to details such as not breaking a bone of the Passover lamb (in order to suck out the marrow), not to take any part of the meat out of the house, as well as details about how a proselyte will be able to observe these rites. These latter regulations apply for the generations after the Exodus.

This section was told to them on the 14th of Nissan. For if it was told on the first of the month, it should have been written above with (v. 12:2), “This month shall be [reckoned] to you,” if they were both stated at the same time.

V. 43. Vers 38 ward berichtet, dass eine große Menge verschiedenartiger Fremden sich Israel beim Auszuge angeschlossen, daran knüpft sich diese חקת הפסח, dieses Gesetz über die Anforderung des Peßachs, die es hinsichtlich der Persönlichkeit der Teilnehmer zu machen hat.

זאת חקת הפסח, “this is the statute of the Passover;” this paragraph is of relevance for all future generations.

כל בן נכר NO STRANGE PERSON — one whose actions are estranged from his Heavenly Father (Zevachim 22b); both a heathen and an apostate Israelite therefore are implied in this term (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:43:2).

THERE SHALL NO ‘BEN NEICHAR’ (ALIEN) EAT THEREOF. “This means one whose actions are estranged from his Heavenly Father, and applies both to a non-Israelite and an Israelite.”³⁵²In our Rashi: “an apostate Israelite.” Thus the language of Rashi quoting from the Mechilta.³⁵³Mechilta on the verse before us. The verse of course is needed only for the case of an [apostate] Israelite. And so did Onkelos translate: “There shall no ‘ben neichar’ eat thereof, i.e, any Israelite who has become an apostate,” meaning he has estranged himself from his brethren and from his Heavenly Father through his evil deeds.
This is the word neichar, mentioned by the Sages in all places, which means estranged, and the purport thereof is m’shumad, one who is a known [opponent to the Torah]. The usage of the word is similar to the Aramaic expression, ‘ve’isht’moda’ (And) Joseph (knew) his brethren, but they ‘isht’modei’ (knew) him not.³⁵⁴Genesis 42:8. In the case of the word m’shumad, it is missing the letter ayin, just as it is absorbed in many [Aramaic] words: midam (anything) in place of mida’am; dor kati in place of dor katia (a chopped generation),³⁵⁵Kethuboth 10b. baki in place of b’kia (expert).³⁵⁶Sanhedrin 5b.

כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו, “no person alienated from his faith is allowed to partake in it.” According to Rashi what are meant are people alienated from their father in heaven, The law applies both to gentiles, as well as to Jews who act like gentiles. Nachmanides writes that there was no need to exclude gentiles specifically, and this also agrees with the translation by Onkelos who speaks of a Jewish “stranger.” A heretic is known either as a משומד, “someone who has destroyed himself,” in the spiritual sense, or a מנוכר, from the word נכר,alien, i.e. someone who has estranged himself to his Creator.

I have seen a view expressed in Shemot Rabbah 19,5 according to which G'd despatched a special wind from Paradise which lent its fragrance to Moses' Passover. When the Israelites inhaled this fragrance they all begged Moses to allow them a taste of his Passover lamb. Moses replied they could not do this as they had not been circumcised, seeing it states in our verse that you have to be circumcised in order to eat from the Passover. Thereupon the Israelites performed the rite of circumcision upon themselves. According to this Midrash we can easily explain why the Torah here did not write: "speak to the children of Israel, etc." An alternative explanation is that this paragraph was addressed only to Moses and Aaron and that G'd commanded them that uncircumcised people should not eat from the Passover. After the Israelites came to Moses and wanted to eat from his Passover they decided to circumcise themselves. [after all the commandment to circumcise themselves dated back to Abrahamitic times and was not valid only for consumption of the Passover. Ed.]

Im Peßachopfer stellt sich das jüdische Volk in seinen zu Familiengruppen gesammelten Gliedern Gott zur "Herde" hin und erhält im Genusse desselben sich, von physischem und bürgerlichem Tode frei, zurück. Es ist dies die ewig zu erneuende Bundesschließung mit Gott für Israels welthistorischen Gang durch die Zeiten. Grundbedingung ist: dass nur der daran teilnehmen darf, der national, sei es durch Geburt, Hörigkeit oder Wahl, und an Gesinnung diesem jüdischen Gottesbunde angehört und das Zeichen dieser Bundeshörigkeit, die Mila, an sich und den Seinen vollzogen hat. Ausgeschlossen ist somit: מומר, der durch seine Lebensweise dem jüdischen Gottesbund entfremdete Jude, תושב ושכיר ,שנתנכרו מעשיו לאביו בשמים, der nur durch Domizil oder Vertrag zum jüdischen Kreise in Beziehung stehende Nichtjude, ערל, der Unbeschnittene — selbst שמתו אחיו מחמת מילה, siehe Jebamoth 70 a. Raschi und Tosaphoth daselbst — und der an seinen Söhnen oder Leibeigenen die Mila nicht vollzogen hat. Dagegen nimmt der der Mila gerecht gewordene Leibeigene und Proselyte in völliger Ebenbürtigkeit, wie der eingeborene Jude, an dem Peßach Teil. —

לא יאכל בו, “he must not eat thereof. (the gentile)” Compare a similar formulation i.e. (addressed to the outsider in the third person instead of directly) והנותר בבשר ובלחם, “and anything left over either from the meat or the bread, etc.” (Leviticus 8,32)

According to the aforementioned Midrash how was it possible that Moses would let everyone partake of his Passover seeing it could only be eaten by people who had been invited prior to its being slaughtered? Perhaps Moses only promised them that they could eat from it in order to encourage them to perform circumcision. As soon as the Israelites had circumcised themselves they found that their own Passover exuded the same fragrance as that of Moses so that they did not need to ask him to share it with them. I have seen a proof that the words of that Midrash are true, i.e. that the Israelites had not been prepared to circumcise themselves up to that point. We read in Ezekiel 20,8: "they rebelled against Me and did not want to listen to Me, and I threatened to pour out My wrath over them in the land of Egypt." Clearly, the prophet speaks of the Israelites' unwillingness to observe even the few commandments of G'd which applied at that time, primarily that of circumcision.

נֵכָר .בן נכר ist nicht wie נָכְרִי, ein Adjektiv oder adjektives Substantiv. Es ist vielmehr ein Abstraktum und bezeichnet überall: das unjüdische, heidnische Wesen, das Heidentum, nicht den Heiden. So: אלהי נכר הארץ: die Götter des Heidentums des Landes, d. i. die heidnischen Götter des Landes. בן נכר ist derjenige, der entweder durch Geburt oder durch das Prinzip seines Wandels dem Heidentum angehört. Dass hier auch das letztere, der abgefallene Jude, darunter zu verstehen sei, ergibt sich schon durch die Betrachtung der andern genannten Kategorie. Wenn selbst der גר תושב durch תושב ושכיר, und durch ערל jeder Unbeschnittene ausgeschlossen ist, so ist der durch nichts in Beziehung zur Judenheit und zum Judentum stehende Heide gewiss ausgeschlossen, und bedurfte es dann nicht des כל בן נכר וגו׳. — Charakteristisch ist es aber, dass das Gesetz durch den Anschluß des ערב רב in erster Linie die Möglichkeit voraussetzt, dass dadurch auch ein Jude zum Abfall vom Judentum kommen könne.

ומלתה אתו אז יאכל בו WHEN THOU HAST CIRCUMCISED HIM THEN SHALL HE EAT THEREOF — “he” means his (the slave’s) master; this tells us that the neglect to circumcise his slaves bars him from eating of the Paschal offering. This is the opinion of R. Joshua. Rabbi Eliezer, however, said: the neglect to circumcise his slaves does not bar him from eating of the Paschal offering. The objection was raised: if this be so what means “Then shall he eat thereof”? — The reply was given: “He” means the slave, not the master (the meaning being that the slave, so long as he is uncircumcised may not eat of it) (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:44:2).

But every slave: The circumcision of slaves is an obligation on the master, from Abraham (Genesis 17:12) and onward. We are also commanded about the rest of slaves on Shabbat and holidays. And all of this raises the status of the slave, that it be slightly less than his master. And therefore when he is circumcised, he immediately eats from the Passover sacrifice like his master. But at the end of the Second Temple [period], when character traits became corrupted through the kings of the House of Herod and Israel learned the ways of the gentiles and the kings and ministers and wealthy ones particularly loved to copy the Romans - and we know that the Romans were cruel to their slaves - there were Israelite masters that did not want to circumcise their slaves in order that [the slaves] should not think of themselves as Israelites or [even] as people. The Sages of Israel then arose and decreed that whoever would not circumcise his slaves would not eat from the Passover sacrifice. And in my opinion, their intention was that one who does not consider his slaves to be like people is not fit to be among those that celebrate the festival of freedom. This is the position of most of the Sages, and it is taught anonymously in the Mekhilta (and according to Rashi's textual variant, it is the opinion of R. Yehoshua; and according to Tosafot's variant, it is the opinion of R. Akiva). But R. Eliezer says, "The circumcision of his slave does not impinge upon his eating from the Passover sacrifice"... As he did not want anything that was not in the Torah or in the tradition to be innovated, and he never said anything that he did not hear from the mouth of his teacher. But the rest of the Sages of Israel would innovate ordinances according to the needs of the times. And they had to excommunicate R. Eliezer, as he would protest against everything that veered from that which was passed on to him from his teachers. 

ועצם לא תשברו בו, ”you are not to break a bone of it.” Seeing that the Passover lamb is to be eaten על השובע, as the final part of the meal, so that it satiates the person consuming part of it, breaking bones of it would create the impression in the viewer that the person doing it was left hungry after eating its meat. Alternately, the meaning could be that on that occasion, when the meal was being consumed hurriedly, while standing up, the Israelites would try and stuff themselves as much as they could in anticipation of a long march. Such behaviour would contradict the festive nature of the meal.

V. 44. עבר איש מקנת כסף. Zur Würdigung der Tatsache, dass das Gesetz bei seinem selbst eben aus der Sklaverei zur Freiheit erstehendem Volke doch die Fortdauer einer Leibeigenschaft durch Ankauf von Sklaven vom Auslande voraussetzt und gestattet, dürfte die Erwägung einiger Umstände nicht unwesentlich sein. Kein Jude konnte einen Menschen zum Sklaven machen, er konnte nur Menschen, die nach dem allgemein geltenden Völkerrechte Sklaven waren, durch Kauf zu den Seinigen machen. Dieser Übergang in das Eigentum eines Juden war aber die einzige Rettung eines nach geltendem Völkerrechte zum Sklaven gestempelten Menschen. Die betrübendsten Erfahrungen unserer eigenen Tage ( — Union, Jamaica 1865 — ) lehren uns, wie vogelfrei und unglücklich der nicht nach geltendem Völkerrechte emanzipierte Sklave und selbst der emanzipierte überall ist, wo man ihn als Sklaven oder auch nur gewesenen Sklaven erkennt. Das Haus des Juden war ihm eine Freistätte. Dort war er gesetzlich vor Misshandlungen geschützt und — was nicht genug anzuschlagen ist — gehörte — wenn er wollte (Jebamoth 48 b.) durch מילה und טבילה im Vereine mit seiner Herrschaft dem jüdischen Gottesbunde an. Er war wie die Kinder ein Glied des Hauses und nahm an dem das Gottesvolk konstituierenden Peßachopfermahl wie diese Teil. Ja, es konnte nach der zur Halacha rezipierten Auffassung keiner im Peßachopfer sein Haus unter die leitende Obhut Gottes stellen, durfte somit keiner am Peßachmahl teilnehmen, der auch nur einen leibeigenen Menschen sein nannte, welcher nicht durch מילה und טבילה gleich ihm in den Gottesbund aufgenommen war. (Heißen darum ja auch die Sklaven in Abrahams Hause חניכיו, die durch ihn in den Abrahamsbund Eingeführten. Siehe zu Bereschit 14, 14 u. 15). Wie מילת זכריו, so auch מילת עבדיו מעכבתו מלאכל בפסח! (Jebam. 70 b.) Diese Bestimmung erklärt auch den Wechsel der Personen in diesem Verse und die Prägnanz, mit welcher das "du" in ומלפה hervorgehoben ist. Es heißt nicht: וכל עבד מקנת כספך ומלת אותו אז וגו׳, sondern: זכל עבד איש וגו׳ ומלתה וגו׳. Es ist somit der Herr nicht mit dem, sondern von dem das Gesetz spricht; der im Gesetz Angeredete ist die Gesamtheit der Nation, als deren Stellvertreter der Vater und der Herr in dem Milagebote zu betrachten ist (siehe zu פרשת מילה im Bereschit). Und das Gesetz lautet: Wenn jemand einen Sklaven als Eigentum hat, so musst du, Nation, erst durch מילה ihn zu den deinen zählen, es muss erst für dich die Mila an ihm vollzogen sein, dann darf er, der Herr, am Peßach teilnehmen.

מקנת כסף, “or acquired through purchase;” slaves whose bodies are owned by an Israelite (and who have been circumcised) may partake of the annual Passover. It also includes: wife and children living at home and provided for by their father.

ומלת אותו אז יאכל בו, “when you circumcise him, then he may eat of it.” The reason why this is a repeat is to tell us that there is no waiting period after the circumcision. If for some reason the foreskin grew back, such a slave is not disqualified from eating of the Passover, as long as he had been ritually circumcised once. The same applies to slaves owned by a priest in whose home sacrificial meat or tithes called t’rumah may be served on a daily basis.

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”).

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.

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.

(Exodus 12:45) "A toshav and a sachir may not eat of it": "toshav": a resident proselyte (one who undertakes not to serve idolatry) and a sachir (a hired) gentile may not eat of it. R. Eliezer says: What is the intent of "toshav and sachir"? (i.e., Is it not already written [Exodus 12:43] "No stranger may eat of it"?) To reason from Pesach to terumah to forbid it to one who is uncircumcised. __ But even if it were not written, would I not know it a fortiori, viz.: If the Pesach offering, of lesser stringency, is forbidden to the uncircumcised, how much more so, terumah, of greater stringency! __ No, this may be true of Pesach, whose permitted time of eating is limited, wherefore it is forbidden to the uncircumcised, as opposed to terumah, whose permitted time of eating is extended. It is, therefore, written "toshav and sachir" in respect to Pesach and an extra "toshav and sachir" in respect to terumah towards the formulation of a gezeirah shavah . Just as here, (the Pesach offering) is forbidden to the uncircumcised, so, there, terumah is forbidden to the uncircumcised. R. Yitzchak says: What is the intent of "toshav and sachir"? Is it not already written "No stranger may eat of it"? (For if it were not written), I would think that a circumcised Arab and a circumcised Giveonite, (not being strangers to the land) may eat of the Pesach. It is, therefore, written "No stranger may eat of it."

V. 45. תושב. Im jüdischen Lande konnte jeder Fremde ein Domizilrecht und alle damit verknüpften bürgerlichen Rechte erwerben, ohne Jude zu werden, sobald er nur durch Lossagung vom Götzentum die allgemeinen Menschenpflichten als ihn verbindend übernahm, ז׳ מצות בני נח. Ein solcher hieß: domizilberechtigt, שכיר — .תושב ist derjenige, der nur in Lohnverhältnis zu einem jüdischen Hause steht.

תושב, “a resident stranger;” this is how Rashi understands the word תושב here. The legal status of such a “resident” stranger applies when he undertook to observe the seven universally applicable laws for disobedience to which any human being is culpable. Such a person is allowed to eat meat from animals that did not die through ritual slaughter. Interestingly, when the same word appears in Leviticus 25,47, he explains it as: a Jewish servant (sold by the court for having stolen and not repaid). Some commentators say that the word תושב here refers only to eating of the Passover, whereas in Leviticus is refers to the eating of the tithes called t’rumah.

ושכיר AND A HIRED SERVANT — a heathen. But why need Scripture state at all that these (the תושב and the שכיר) may not eat of the Passover lamb? These are uncircumcised and it is said (v. 48) “And no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof”? But it refers to such a one as a circumcised Arabian or a circumcised Gibeonite who is a settler or a hired servant (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:45; Yevamot 71a).

בבית אחד יאכל IN ONE HOUSE SHALL IT BE EATEN — in one company (cf. שה לבית); meaning that those who have registered themselves for it (the Paschal offering) shall not form themselves afterwards into two companies and divide it. An objection was raised: You say that this means “in one company”, but perhaps this is not so, but it means “in one house” (or place) as it usually signifies, and it intends to teach that if they had begun to eat, for example, in the courtyard of a house and rain fell they may not enter the house to complete the eating of the offering? The reply was given: this cannot be so, because Scripture says, (v. 7) “[They shall put the blood] upon the houses (plural) wherein they shall eat it” — and from here it follows that one who is eating the Paschal offering may eat it in two places (consequently the only meaning of the term בית is “company”, as was suggested) (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:46:1 and Onkelos).

That is that He commanded us to bring two breads of chametz to the Temple with the sacrifices that come with the bread on Shavuot - which is fixed for the bringing of the sacrifice, as it appears in Leviticus - and that the priests eat the two breads, after their waving, with the lambs of the peace offering. And that is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, "You shall bring from your settlements bread as a wave offering" (Leviticus 23:17). And it has already been explained in Menachot (Menachot 45b) that this sacrifice that comes because of the bread is separate from the additional sacrifice of the day, and that this one is different than that one. And we ourselves have already explained this with sufficient elucidation in the commentary on Tractate Menachot (Commentary on the Mishnah). And the regulations of this commandment have already all been explained in Tractate Menachot, Chapters 4, 8 and 11. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Daily and Additional Offerings 8.)

ועצם לא תשברו בו, as a symbol of the haste in which it must be eaten.

From this [we infer] that whoever eats it may eat it in two places. You might ask: How does Rashi know [that in this verse, “house” means “group,” whereas in the earlier verse (v. 7), it means “place”]? Perhaps it is the opposite: בבית אחד יאכל means as it sounds, [and “house” means “place.” Thus, they shall not continue eating it in a different place from where they started]. And על הבתים אשר יאכלו אותו בהם (v.7) teaches that the group is allowed to break up [before they start eating,] and eat it separately in two different houses. Re”m answers: Since our verse is vocalized יֵאָכֵל (it must be eaten), perforce it refers to the korbon Pesach. [This way the emphasis is on the korbon Pesach itself, teaching that it must remain in one group, although the eaters themselves may move from place to place, as long as they stay as one group]. For if it was referring to [the eater of the korbon Pesach, that he shall not move from house to] house, then it would be vocalized יֹאכַל (he must eat it). Then it would mean that its members shall eat it in one house [and shall not continue eating in a different place, even if they stay as one group].

V. 46. בבית אחד וגו׳. In höchst eigentümlicher Weise stehen hier Bestimmungen über die Art und Weise, wie das Peßach gegessen werden soll, mitten in einer Reihe gesetzlicher Bestimmungen über die Qualifikation der zum Genusse desselben zuzulassenden Persönlichkeiten! Allein eben diese Stellung gibt Ausschluss über den Sinn dieser Bestimmungen. Von vornherein, wie wir gesehen, hat sich ja das Peßachgebot als Aufbau und Weihe des jüdischen Hauses angekündigt. Nicht Individuen und nicht die Masse, Häuser, zu Familiengruppen vereinigte Menschen, das ist die Basis, auf welcher Gott sein Volk erbaut, "Häuser" vor allem sind Gegenstand seiner nimmer schlummernden Fürsorge und Leitung, und als Glied eines Hauses reiht sich jeder einzelne Israelssohn der "von ihm geweideten Herde" ein.

בבית אחד יאכל, “it (all of it) must be consumed in one house;” according to the plain meaning this means that the Passover lamb must be consumed in the house of the owner. No parts of it may be sent to friends or acquaintances. When one consumes something in a hurry one does not have time to attend to such niceties. These considerations are only in place when one sits down to a meal that has been carefully prepared and is consumed at one’s leisure. This is also one of the reasons why the Torah forbade any Israelite to leave his home during that night until morning.

לא תוציא מן הבית THOU SHALT NOT CARRY FORTH OUT OF THE HOUSE this must therefore mean away from the company (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:46:2).

[A bone] that is edible as, for example. . . Rashi is explaining that יֵאָכֵל refers also to the prohibition of breaking bones. It is as if Scripture had written, “A bone that may be eaten, you must not break.” (Re”m)

זאת חקת הפסח, dieses Peßachgesetz gibt nun die persönlichen Eigenschaften an, die die Gliedschaft eines jüdischen Hauses bedingen. Seine Glieder müssen durch Bestimmung und Wandel dem jüdisch-nationalen Gottesbunde angehören, und ihr Leib mit dem von Gott eingesetzten jüdisch-nationalen Gottesbundeszeichen gesiegelt sein. Denn sowie Gott die Gesamtheit nur in den Häusern erblicken will, so will er das Haus auch nur in der Gesamtheit schauen. Es sei das Haus nicht etwas Vereinzeltes, nur sich Angehöriges. Es ist vielmehr ein jedes Haus nur eine Pflanzstätte, in welcher der nationale Gesamtgeist und die nationale Gesamtaufgabe zur Pflege und Erfüllung kommt. Darum gehört dem Hause nur der an, der auch der Nation angehört. Die gesamte nationale Aufgabe ist aber eine so große und mannigfaltige, dass daran ein jedes Haus in seiner, durch Charakter, Anlage, Fähigkeit, Stellung usw. reich schattierten Eigentümlichkeit einen Bruchstrahl zur besonderen Entfaltung hat, und so durch die individualisierte und gleichzeitig generelle Lösung des einen gemeinsamen Ganzen in dem Zusammenwirken aller Besonderheiten die nationale Bestimmung ihre reichste Verwirklichung erhält.

ועצם לא תשברו בו, “you must not break a single of its bones.” In other words, it is forbidden to eat any of its marrow. Looking for marrow is also one way of delaying your departure when you are summoned, and you have to be ready to leave your house at a moment’s notice. Every person invited to participate in that meal is to take his portion and not waste time about breaking bones and extracting marrow. A different interpretation of the prohibition not to break a bone: The Torah had commanded to eat the meat of the Passover על השובע, i.e. at the conclusion of the meal so that it is what brings on the feeling of having been satiated. In that way, the last taste in our mouth on that evening is that of the roasted meat of the lamb. If we were to break bones and suck out the marrow, the last taste of the evening would be that of marrow. Some commentators understand the expression: על השובע, as meaning that there should be a big enough portion for everyone at the table so that they would be satiated without having to look for the marrow in the bones before becoming satiated. Some people reject this interpretation as too far fetched, as the Torah only needed to write positively, “eat to your heart’s content,” instead of negatively: “do not break a bone of it.”When looked at in connection with the laws governing the פסח שני, the observing of the Passover rites a month later if one could not observe it on the 14th of Nissan for a legitimate reason, the Torah writes that all the rules applying to that substitute are identical to those that apply to the Passover on the fourteenth of Nissan. (Numbers 9,12.) However, in spite of this, the Torah adds there in the same verse that not a bone of the lamb must be broken. This shows that there must be a different reason than those we have mentioned for why this rule was added. We must therefore assume that not only bones that contain marrow are included in this legislation but also bones that do not contain marrow. If there is meat less than the size of an olive attached to such a bone, it must not be “broken, i.e. treated as if it contained marrow and the owner wishes to gnaw it clean. This is what we have learned from tractate Pessachim folio 85. [In other words: while on the one hand we are commanded not to leave anything over, we must also not treat that lamb as if it saved us from imminent starvation. Ed.]

ועצם לא תשברו בו NEITHER SHALL YE BREAK A BONE THEREOF — any bone that is fitted for eating (for the purpose of the performing the command of eating the Paschal lamb) as, for instance, one upon which there is flesh of the size of an olive — to it there is (applies) the prohibition relating to the breaking of a bone, but if there is not upon it flesh of the size of an olive there does not apply to it the prohibition of breaking a bone (cf. Pesachim 84b).

Durch die Anordnung: בבית אחד יאכל und לא תוציא מן הבית מן הבשר חוצה erhält nun aber jedes Haus in seiner Besonderheit den höchsten Ausdruck der Bedeutsamkeit und Weihe. Während die vorhergehenden Bestimmungen das Haus nur aus solchen Gliedern gruppieren lassen, die dem Gesamtgeist und der Gesamtbestimmung angehören, erheben diese Sätze ein jedes besondere Haus geradezu zu der Bedeutung eines Heiligtums. Wie das nationale Heiligtum, מקדש (im Gegensatz zur יוצא כשר בבמה ,במה, Sebachim 112 b., 120 a.) ideell als ein in sich geschlossener lebendiger Organismus betrachtet wird, der in dem Umkreis seines Mittelpunktes alles an sich hält, das ihm geweiht angehört, von ihm beherrscht seine Bestimmung erreicht und ihm entrissen — wie das טריפה des tödlich getroffenen Tieres — abstirbt (ובשר בשדה טריפה לא תאכלו: כיון שיצא בשר חזץ למחיצתו נאסר Sebachim 82. b.): so wird auch jedes durch die im Peßach vereinigte Gruppe repräsentierte Haus ein geschlossener heiliger Kreis, dem kein Glied und kein Opferteil entfremdet werden soll. Wohl darf ein Peßach in zwei Gesellschaftsgruppen gegessen werden, הפסח נאכל בב׳ חבורות; allein eine jede solche Gruppe bildet einen für sich gesonderten, geschlossenen Kreis, (nach der Auffassung des רמב׳׳ם mussten sie sogar ihre Räume durch wirkliche Wände abgrenzen הל׳ ק׳פ ט׳ ג׳) und jeder darf nur in dem einen Raum von seinem Peßach essen: אין האוכל אוכל בשני מקומות, בבית אחד יאכל; kein Teil vom Opferfleische durfte aus dem Kreise hinausgebracht werden, לא תוציא מן הבית מן הבשר חוצה; und alles außerhalb des Kreises Hinausgebrachte wurde פסול wie jedes יוצא außerhalb des angewiesenen Umkreises des Heiligtums.

Und wie hier auf klarer Sonderung der Häuser und entschiedener Überweisung eines jeden Gliedes in den seinen Familienkreis repräsentierenden Peßachopferraum ideell das jüdische Volk sich aufbaut, also sehen wir auch später wiederholt und wiederholt bei dem realen Aufbau des Volkes geradezu als erstes, alles andere bedingendes Fundament: die Zählung Israels למשפחתם לבית אבותם hervortreten. Israels Stolz und Unsterblichkeitsquell ist das aus keuscher Reinheit sich gruppierende Familienleben — יחוסין שלהם (siehe מדרש אספה Jalkult zur Stelle ויהי אחרי מגפה v. B. M. 25, 19) — eine Perle, deren Wahrung ja das auch hier bedingende Bundeszeichen Abrahams in erster Linie fordert.

ועצם לא תשברו בו. Das eigentliche Opfer besteht zunächst aus dem Blute und dem Muskelfleische, also dem eigentlichen aktiven Teil des Organismus, ועשית עולתיך הבשר והדם (Dewarim 12, 27, Sebachim 86 a.) mit Ausschluss der Knochen, die ja nur das passive, Halt und Mittel gewährende Gerüste bilden. Ist ja das Opfer wesentlich eine Hingebung des Wesens und der von diesem Wesen ausgehenden Willenstätigkeiten. Im Peßachopfer bekommt der Opfernde sich selbst wieder zurück. Dieser symbolische Selbstgenuss ist eben der Ausdruck der Wiederzurückgabe der Persönlichkeit, d.i der wiedergewonnenen Freiheit. Diese Wiederzurückgabe bezieht sich zunächst nur auf בשר, auf die aktive Seite der Persönlichkeit. Mit diesem בשר, diesem מְבַשֵר des נפש, liegen zugleich die עצמות, die dieser Willenstätigkeit zu Gebote gestellten Mittel vor. Sie sind nicht das Wesen, aber sie sind das dem Wesen zu Gebote Gestellte, und in Verbindung mit ihm, עצם שיש בו בשר, repräsentieren sie nicht die Tätigkeit, aber das die Tätigkeit bedingende Mittel, und so lange das בשר daran die freie Gott geweihte Willenstätigkeit des Opfernden repräsentieren kann, d. h. so lange das בשר טהור ist, gewinnt das von dieser Willenstätigkeit ergriffene Mittel selbst Bedeutsamkeit und ist vor Zerstörung geschützt. Losgelöst von unserm sie rein und heilig verwendenden Wesen, sind die Mittel wertlos. In Verbindung mit ihm nehmen sie Teil an der Bedeutung unserer sittlich freien Persönlichkeit. Daher die Sätze: אין בו כזית בשר אין בו משום שבירת עצם ,בטמא אין בו משום שבירת עצם (siehe Peßachim 84). Im Zusammenhange mit den beiden vorangehenden Bestimmungen sprechen sich die Sätze also aus: Keine Person soll dem Hause, kein בשר den Personen, und kein עצם dem בשר entzogen werden: die geweihte Idee des Hauses soll alle und alles an sich zusammen halten!

כל עדת ישראל יעשו אתו ALL THE CONGREGATION OF ISRAEL SHALL KEEP IT — Why is this stated? Since it says of the Paschal offering offered in Egypt, (v. 3) “a lamb for the house of their fathers” which means that they are to be registered for it by families, one might think that in the case of the Paschal offering offered by future generations this must also be so! Therefore Scripture states: “All the congregation of Israel may eat it” (i.e. any of them may eat it whoever they may be who combine to do so) (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:47).

The Torah tells us: “The entire community of Yisrael.” I.e., even if they are not from the same family [they may make a group].

(Exodus 12:47) "The entire congregation of Israel shall offer it": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 21) "Draw forth and take for yourselves sheep for your families," I might think that just as the Pesach of Egypt is kasher only (if eaten) by families, so, the Pesach for future generations. It is, therefore, written "the entire congregation of Israel," whereby we are apprised that the Pesach of future generations may be eaten in all kinds of groups, (and not just in family groups).

V. 47. Und obgleich also in sorgfältig geschiedene und individuell geheiligte häusliche Gruppen geteilt, sollen sie doch zusammen eine einheitliche Eda bilden; alle die vielen züsammen, gleichzeitig ein und dasselbe Opfer vollbringend, sich und die Ihrigen auf einen und denselben Voden des Daseins und der Bestimmung stellend,

כל עדת בני ישראל יעשו אותו, “the entire community of the Children of Israel is to perform it. (that commandment).” The lesson from this verse is that also in future generations this is a communal commandment, but participation is not limited to immediate family members. (Compare Malbim). [The word “also” in the version of the commentary is an obvious error, as the Passover in Egypt was specifically restricted to the members of each household. Ed.]

ועשה פסח AND HE WILL KEEP THE PASSOVER (the words may mean, then he shall keep the Passover) — One might think that this verse implies that any-one who becomes a proselyte (גר) must keep the Passover-offering rite immediately after his circumcision (even though this has not taken place just before Passover), therefore Scripture states והיה כאזרח הארץ “but he shall be as a native of the land”. How is it in the case of a native? He brings the offering on the fourteenth! So, too, a proselyte must bring it only on the fourteenth (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:49).

וכי יגור אתך גר, "When a stranger will sojourn with you, etc." This was Moses' authority to accept converts from amongst the Egyptians. The reason the Torah writes אתך, "with you" (sing), is that such conversions had to be personally approved by Moses. There is also a hint here that G'd agreed to this only reluctantly, i.e. לרצון משה, and that is why the Torah wrote אתך גר, "he is a stranger (proselyte) with you, (but not with Me). G'd's reluctance was due to Moses' inability to examine G'd's hidden reasons. We all know what the result of Moses' accepting such proselytes was and how they triggered the sin of the golden calf.

וכל ערל, A Jew whose brother had died from the after-effects of the circumcision and has therefore not been circumcised himself must not eat from this offering. (Compare Rashi)

וכל ערל לא יאכל בו, “and no uncircumcised male must eat of it” (the Passover lamb). This verse proves that Moses circumcised all the Israelites before they left Egypt. Concerning this circumcision our sages (Mechilta 8) state that G’d gave the Jewish people two commandments by the merit of which they were redeemed. They were the blood of circumcision and the blood of the Passover. Ezekiel immortalised this when he wrote: ואעבור עליך ואראך מתבוססת בדמיך ואמר לך בדמיך חיי, ואומר לך בדמיך חיי, “then I saw you wallowing in your blood; I said to you: “live because of your blood!” I said to you: “live through your blood!” (Ezekiel 16,6) This is why the Torah writes immediately after the prohibition of uncircumcised males participating in the eating of the Passover that “all the Israelites did as Hashem had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did” (verse 50). Earlier, in verse 28 when the Torah had also stated that the Israelites did what they had been commanded by Moses and Aaron, the word “all” could not be written as many of them at the time were ritually unclean and could not have eaten the Passover on that account. We have further evidence that the Israelites who participated in the Exodus had all been circumcised in Joshua 5,5 “for all the Israelites who left Egypt had been circumcised.”

V. 48. Gleich bei der Konstituierung des jüdischen Volkes ward es ausgesprochen, dass diese Konstituierung nicht nur die aus Mizrajim erlösten Söhne Abrahams und deren Nachkommen im Auge habe. Was von Abraham bis zur Erlösung aus Ägypten geschehen, ist für die ganze Menschheit geschehen, und jeder Mensch kann diese Vergangenheit zu der seinigen machen und in den Kreis der Erlösten eintreten. Nicht Abstammung und nicht die Heimatsberechtigung, nur das, was der Mensch in sich selber trägt, das Menschliche im Menschen wiegt auf der Waage des konstituierten Gottesstaats. Der geborene Jude verliert den Wert, wenn er בן נכר wird, wenn er sich heidnisch entfremdet. Der geborene Heide gewinnt volle Ebenbürtigkeit, sobald er sich und die Seinen dem jüdischen Gottesbunde einreiht. Die bloße Heimatsberechtigung mit allen Konsequenzen des privatrechtlichen Bürgertums gewährt dieser Staat schon, wie bereits zu, V. 45 bemerkt, jedem Menschen, wenn er auch nicht Jude geworden, wenn er nur sich zu den Verpflichtungen der allgemeinen Menschenbestimmung bekennt, גר תושב wird. Der Jude gewordene Mensch, גר צדק, kann sogar das Peßachopfer für sich und die Seinen vollbringen, obgleich seine Väter nicht aus Mizrajim gezogen. Für ihn haben die jüdischen Väter gelitten und aus Gottes Hand die Freiheit empfangen und, wie V. 27 ausgesprochen, gehört das Peßach fortan nicht nur der Vergangenheit, ist nicht eine bloße Gedächtnisfeier vergangener Zeiten, sondern ewig wiederholter und ewig fortschreitender Ausbau jeder Gegenwart und jeder Zukunft auf dem alten für alle Zeit mit יציאת מצרים geschaffenen Boden. — זרה ,אזרה heißt nicht strahlen, scheinen, im allgemeinen, sondern aufstrahlen aus der Tiefe, aufgehen. Wir kennen, schon den sprachlichen Antagonismus der ע-Wurzeln und ח-Wurzeln. Hier auch heißt זרע: in die Tiefe einstreuen und זרח: aus der Tiefe aufstreuen. Daher von der Sonne: aufgehen, und מזרה: der Ort, wo die Sonne aus der Tiefe ihre Strahlen aufstreut, der Ort des Sonnenaufgangs. אזרח, ein Wesen, das sich da befindet, wo es aus dem Dunkel des Nichthierseins ins Hiersein aufgegangen. Von der Pflanze: die noch auf heimischem Boden sich befindet. Vom Menschen: der Einheimische, Eingeborne.

ועשה פסח, “and he wishes to perform the commandment of participating in the Passover ritual;”

וכל ערל לא יאכל בו AND NO UNCIRCUMCISED PERSON SHALL EAT THEREOF — This is stated in addition to the somewhat similar text in v. 43 in order to include in the prohibition of eating the Paschal offering any person whose brothers have died in consequence of circumcision (in which case the parents are exempted from circumcising any of their children born after the death of these), because such a one is not to be regarded as an apostate who of set purpose remains uncircumcised, and the law regarding such a one cannot be derived from the statement in v. 43, “no strange person shall eat thereof” (because Rashi has explained this to refer to an Israelite whose doings have estranged him from God).

המול לו כל זכר, "let all his males be circumcised, etc." Just as failure to circumcise a slave prevents such a slave from participating in the Passover, so failure of a proselyte to circumcise all his male slaves is a prerequisite before the proselyte himself can eat of the Passover. The reason that the Torah adds ואז יקרב, "and then he may approach," is to tell us that he does not need to appoint a natural born Jew to slaughter his Passover offering but that he may do so himself. This is why the Torah adds: "he will be just like a natural born Jew."

והיה כאזרח הארץ, ”so that he will feel as if a natural born Jew (from birth);” the example is meant to portray a gentile who upon hearing the history of the Jewish people has decided to convert to that religion/nation; it might be thought that since his forefathers did not suffer servitude in Egypt he could not do so; the Torah therefore states that as soon as he has undergone ritual circumcision his past history has been wiped out and he is treated as if he had been born a Jew and shared their suffering throughout the ages. Just as a natural born Jew who for a valid reason was unable to observe the Passover in the month of Nissan has been granted a second chance, so has the new convert who could not observe it before conversion.

וכל ערל לא יאכל בו, “no uncircumcised person must eat of it.” Being uncircumcised is considered as being physically repulsive, ugly, as we have learned in the Talmud Pessachim, folio 96.

תורה אחת וגו׳ ONE LAW etc. — This is stated in addition to the similar text in v. 48 in order to declare that the proselyte is equal to the native also in respect to all other commands of the Torah (i. e. the preceding text has reference only to the Paschal offering whilst this is a general statement) (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:49).

Regarding the other mitzvos of the Torah. You might ask: Why should we think converts are different? They are full Jews! Granted that the previous verse needed to equate the convert to the native born regarding bringing the korbon Pesach on the 14th of Nisan, since we might have thought that he brings the korbon Pesach right when he converts. Thus it is written, “Like the native born,” as Rashi explained. But why should converts be different regarding the other mitzvos of the Torah? The answer is: The fact that the Torah needed to equate them regarding the korbon Pesach on the fourteenth [of Nisan] might have led us to say that they are different regarding other mitzvos. (Re”m)

(Exodus 12:49) "One Torah shall there be for the citizen, etc." What is the intent of this? Is it not already written (Ibid. 48) "And he shall be as the citizen of the land"? From "And if there live with you a stranger and he would offer a Pesach to the L rd," I would think that the proselyte is equated with the citizen only in respect to the Pesach. Whence do I derive (the same for) all the mitzvoth of the Torah? From "One Torah shall there be for the citizen and for the stranger."

תורה אחת יהיה, “one Torah (law) there shall be.” The word Torah appears here as masculine (יהיה) after first having been described as feminine (אחת). Usually it appears only as feminine.[In the opinion of this editor, this type of incongruity is always a reminder that the Torah could not have been written by a human being, as a human being would not want to be guilty of such grammatical inconsistency. Such “errors” would long ago have been “edited” out. Ed.]

הגר הגר בתוככם, “the stranger that resides amongst you.” The term refers to a proselyte who has been converted by a competent court, as opposed to one who has taken a legal shortcut to conversion.

V. 50. Siehe V. 28. Wenn sich dieser Bericht treuer Ausführung des von Gott Gebotenen auf das noch in Mizrajim vollzogene Peßachopfer bezieht, so muss dieses Gesetz noch am 14. Nissan gegeben worden sein und wäre dann wohl seine Stellung hier nach dem bereits erfolgten Auszuge daraus erklärlich, weil durch den dabei hervorgetretenen Anschluss einer Masse Fremder die praktische Anwendung desselben hervorleuchtet. Möglich, dass dieser Anschluss sich bereits in der Nacht vom 13. zum 14. bemerkbar gemacht, wo die sittliche Würdigung des jüdischen Volkscharakters so siegreich die Achtung und Zuneigung der ägyptischen Bevölkerung errungen hatte. Es wäre dann schon bei diesem ersten Peßach die Gelegenheit zur Anwendung dieses Gesetzes reichlich gegeben gewesen.

ויעשו כל בני ישראל, “all the Children of Israel performed, etc.” here as well as in 8,14, it is impossible to translate this line literally, i.e. that every single member of the Jewish people performed the Passover ritual, (minors and babies included); the meaning is simply that the Jewish people ever since, annually performed the ritual of the Passover. We find similar “inaccuracy” in Exodus 8,14, where the Torah wrote: ויעשו כן החרטומים, which literally translated would mean: “the sorcerers performed the same miracle.” Had they been able to perform the same miracle or even to reverse it, they would not have been ”sorcerers.”

AND IT CAME TO PASS THE SELFSAME DAY THE ETERNAL DID BRING THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT. Since Scripture said above, It was a night of watching unto the Eternal for bringing them out of the land of Egypt,³⁶¹Above, Verse 42. it reverted and explained that they did not go out at all of the land then, but that Pharaoh gave them permission [at night] to go out, and thus they became free men. Instead, it was in the glare of full daylight that they went out from all the borders of Egypt with all their hosts — the hosts of women and the mixed multitude³⁶²Ibid., Verse 38. that attached themselves to them.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained the purport of the verse as follows: “And it came to pass the selfsame day that the Eternal did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt that He spoke to Moses, saying, Sanctify unto Me.”³⁶³Further, 13:2. Thus according to Ibn Ezra, the verse before us is to be joined to the following chapter.

ויהי בעצם היום הזה, It was on the self-same day, etc. The reason the Torah records the Exodus immediately after concluding the legislation of the Passover ceremonies is to remind us that the fulfilment of this מצוה is what triggered the redemption from Egypt. The Israelites had no other credentials than performance of this commandment.

'ויהי בעצם היום הזה וגו, although this has been mentioned once, it is repeated because G’d gave instructions to Moses concerning the sanctifying of the Jewish firstborn forthwith on the very day the Exodus took place.

ויהי בעצם היום הזה, “it was on that very day, etc.” Ibn Ezra explains that this verse is inseparable from the one following it, [although the Christians start a new chapter with the next verse. Ed.] seeing that G’d spoke to Moses and gave him the instructions regarding sanctifying the first born of man and certain beasts. Nachmanides justifies the use of the line: “on that very day,” by referring to the ליל שמורים discussed previously. The verse describing the nature of that night could have given the impression that the Israelites actually moved out of Egypt during the same night. The line in our verse is meant to correct any such impression, and to emphasise that the Exodus took place on the morning of the 15th of Nissan. The significance of the previous night, the ליל שמורים, lay in the Israelites having obtained permission to leave by the Egyptians.

V. 51. על צבאותם. Durch Geburt und Wahl, wie dies durch die ersten Paragraphen des Peßachgesetzes, Kap. 12, 3. 4, angebahnt und durch das letzte Gesetz, V. 43 f. noch näher präzisiert war, hatten sich alle Seelen der jüdischen Volksgesamtheit in Familiengruppen kristallisiert, jede solche Hausesgruppe hatte in dem vorangehenden Gesetze ihre heilige geweihte Bedeutung in Mitte der Gesamtheit gewonnen, so dass in Wahrheit nicht nur jeder Stamm, sondern selbst jede Familie, jedes Haus, als eine um Gott sich scharende Gruppe zu bezeichnen war, und in solchen, um den gemeinsamen Mittelpunkt sich scharenden Heeresgruppen war der Auszug vollzogen; da gab Gott das Gesetz der Erstgeburtsweihe, durch welche innerhalb einer jeden solchen Familiengruppe der sie in sich zusammenhaltende und zur Nationalgesamtheit einigende Gedanke seine lebendigen Vertreter haben sollte.

ויהי בעצם היום הזה, “it was on that very same day;” these words have to be read as linked to what the Torah wrote in verse 41 where it described the departure of the Jewish people from Egypt in the same terms. If proof were needed that this is the correct interpretation, compare Numbers 3,13: כי לי כל בכור ביום הכותי כל בכור וגו', “for every firstborn Israelite belongs to Me, since the day when I smote all the firstborn of Egypt, etc.”

That is that He commanded us to slaughter the Pesach-offering on the fourteenth of Nissan in the afternoon. And one who transgresses this command and does not sacrifice it in its time is liable for excision - whether it is a man or a woman. And it has already been explained in the Gemara (Pesachim 91b) that the first Pesach is a commandment [also] for women and that it pushes off the Shabbat. That means to say, its sacrifice must be on the fourteenth [even when it] comes out on a Shabbat, [for women] - just like for every Jewish man. And the Torah's language about the liability for excision is His saying, "and refrains from offering the Pesach-offering, that person shall be cut off" (Numbers 9:13). And at the beginning of Keritot (Keritot 2a) when it lists the commandments for which one who transgresses them becomes liable for excision - and they are all negative commandments - it says, "And the Pesach-offering and circumcision, among the positive commandments." And we already mentioned this in the introduction (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 14). And this commandment has already been explained in Pesachim. (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 1.)

That is that He commanded us to eat the lamb of the Pesach-offering on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan according to the stipulations mentioned - and that is that it is roasted, that it is eaten in one house and that is eaten with matzah and bitter herbs (maror). And that is His saying, "They shall eat the meat that night; they shall eat it roasted with fire, with matzah and with bitter herbs" (Exodus 12:8). And perhaps a questioner will challenge me and say, "Why do you count the eating of the Pesach-offering, matzah and the bitter herbs as one commandment and not count them as three commandments?" I would [then] answer him that it is true that the eating of matzah is a separate commandment, as I will explain later (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 158); likewise is the eating of the meat of the Pesach-offering a separate commandment, as we have mentioned. However the bitter herbs are an extension of the eating of the Pesach-offering and are not counted as a separate commandment. And the proof of the matter is that the meat of the Pesach-offering is eaten to fulfill the commandment, whether bitter herbs are available or whether they are not available. But bitter herbs are only eaten with the meat of the Pesach-offering - as His saying, "upon [...] bitter herbs shall they eat it" (Numbers 9:11). But [if one ate] bitter herbs without meat, he has not done anything; and we do not say that he has already fulfilled a commandment. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:8:3) is, "'They shall eat it roasted with fire, with matzah and with bitter herbs' - tells [us] that the commandment of the Pesach-offering is roasted meat, matzah and bitter herbs." This means that the commandment is the combination of these. And there, they said, "From where [do we know that] which you say, that if they do not have matzah and bitter herbs, they fulfill their obligation with the Pesach-offering? [Hence] we learn to say, 'shall they eat it'" - meaning the meat by itself. "I might think that if they do not have a Pesach-offering, they [do not] fulfill their obligation with matzah and bitter herbs. Behold you argue: The Pesach-offering is a positive commandment and matzah and bitter herbs are a positive commandment. Behold you have learned that if they do not have matzah and bitter herbs, they fulfill their obligation for the Pesach-offering; so too, if they do not have the Pesach-offering, they fulfill their obligation for matzah and bitter herbs. ([Hence] we learn to say, 'upon matzah and bitter herbs shall they eat it.')" And there, they [also] said, "'They shall eat it' - From here, [we know] that the Pesach-offering is to be eaten in a state of satiety, but matzah and maror are not [necessarily] to be eaten in a state of satiety." That is because the essence of the commandment is the eating of the meat - as He said, "They shall eat the meat that night," whereas the bitter herbs are an extension of the eating of the meat; and their obligation is explained from these verses, for those that understand them. And the obvious proof of this is the [following statement] in the Talmud - and that is their saying (Pesachim 120a), "Bitter herbs in our days is rabbinic." For there is no obligation from the Torah to eat them by themselves. Rather they should be eaten with the meat of the Pesach-offering. And that is a clear proof that they are from those things that are extensions of the commandment [of the Pesach-offering], and that their eating is not a separate commandment. And the regulations of this commandment are also explained in Tractate Pesachim. (See Parashat Bo; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 1.)

That is that He commanded to burn consecrated items that have become impure. And that is His saying, "Meat that touches anything impure [... shall be burned in fire]" (Leviticus 7:19). And in the Gemara Shabbat (Shabbat 25a), it comes to explain the reason for that which it is forbidden to kindle priestly tithes of oil that have become impure on a holiday - and they said about this, "'Shabbaton' (Leviticus 23:24) [indicates] it is a positive commandment, such that [rest from work on] the holiday is a positive commandment and a negative commandment. And a positive commandment does not push off a negative commandment and a positive commandment." And the content of this statement is that the doing of work on a holiday is forbidden: And one who does it transgresses a positive commandment, since [work] is the negation of a positive commandment. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying about the holiday, "it shall be a Shabbaton for you." And he [also] transgresses a negative commandement, since he is doing what has been forbidden to him. And that is His saying, "no work shall be done on them" (Exodus 12:16) - meaning on the holidays. Whereas the burning of consecrated items is a positive commandment. Hence it is not permitted to burn it on a holiday, on account of the principle that it mentioned: "A positive commandment does not push off a negative commandment and a positive commandment." And there, they also said, "Just like it is a commandment to burn consecrated items that have become impure, so too is it a commandment to burn priestly tithes of oil that have become impure." And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Pesachim and at the end of Termurah. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar.)

That is that He commanded to burn leftovers (notar). And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "What is left over of the meat of the sacrifice shall be burned" (Leviticus 7:17). And in explanation of His [also] saying about the Pesach lamb, "You shall not leave over from it" (Exodus 12:10), they said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 12:10), "It comes to give a positive commandment and a negative commandment." And in many places in Pesachim and Makkot and other places besides them, it says in explanation, that it is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment; and therefore we do not receive lashes for it. And the positive commandment is that which we mentioned, "What is left over from it, you shall burn" (Exodus 12:10). And the law of leftovers and improper (pigul) [sacrifices] is the same, as I will explain in the Negative Commandments (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 132). For the improper has already been referred to by the expression, "leftovers." And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Pesachim and at the end of Temurah. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar.)