Exodus · Chapter 12

And Hashem spoke to Moses and to Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying:

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 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).

"And He spoke." Here Scripture first mentions the commandments that came through Moses and Aaron, for they alone were the prophets of the Torah — no new commandment was given after them, except as the need of the hour required, as in the case of Gideon and Elijah. And do not entertain the thought regarding the matter of the musical instruments used in the Temple under David's direction, for that was an arrangement — an institution established by David and Solomon — and is recorded in keeping with their faithfulness, not as a matter of prophecy. The Gaon [Saadia] said that they held a tradition going back to Moses, that a king may arise and introduce new musical instruments. And similarly [a verse transmitted by tradition, not prophecy is]: "Do not carry a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day" (Jer. 17:22).

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.” Seeing that this chapter contains a number of commandments, it was necessary to write where these commandments were issued - some at Sinai, others at the Meeting Tent, and still others in the Plain of Moab. [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.”

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. בארץ מצרים, “in the land of Egypt.” Outside the metropolis, seeing the city was full of abominations preventing a revelation of G’d’s word there. When the Torah has in mind the metropolis, it often adds the word עיר, such as when Moses told Pharaoh that he would leave the עיר, prior to praying to G’d (9,29). In order to reconcile this with the oft quoted statement by our sages that the Shechinah dwelled in Egypt, our sages explained that as long as the land of Israel had not been chosen as the exclusive domain for the Shechinah, all countries were potentially equally fit to receive a communication from G’d by word of mouth (Mechilta 85). After the land of Israel was chosen, all other countries were no longer suited for G’d to address people there. As long as the Temple had not been erected in Jerusalem, the whole city of Jerusalem was fit to receive such communication from G’d. After the Temple had been built even the city itself was no longer a vehicle for such communication by G’d. Only the holy precincts of the Temple qualified for this as we know from Psalms 132,14: “This is My resting-place for all time; here I will dwell, for I desire it.” By the same token, as long as Aaron had not been chosen to be a priest every Israelite was potentially fit to become a priest. As long as David had not been crowned king, any Israelite could have qualified as king as we know from Exodus 19,6: “you shall be for Me a Kingdom of priests, etc.” After the appointment of David as king, all other Israelites were automatically excluded from qualifying for that position. Even while G’d’s word was communicated outside the borders of Israel this occurred only in a place which was pure or situated on a river. This is based on Daniel 8,2: ”and here I was beside the Ulai river.” We have a similar statement by Ezekiel 1,1 who described himself as on the banks of the river Chidekel when receiving a communication from G’d. In Daniel 10,4, Daniel describes himself as on the banks of the river Tigris when receiving a vision by an angel who addressed him. Shemot Rabbah 15,5 quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish as saying that Israel was on a very high level if G’d agreed to manifest Himself in a place full of impurity and abominations for the sake of this people. He explained this phenomenon by means of a parable. A priest had been given some Terumah, a tithe which is holy and not accessible to laymen. This Terumah had fallen into a graveyard (a place inaccessible to a priest by law). The priest pondered his problem saying that he was certainly not permitted to defile himself by entering the cemetery. On the other hand, he was desperately dependent on that Terumah so that he could not forego it. He decided that it was preferable for him to temporarily defile himself and subsequently to purify himself than to die from starvation by foregoing this Terumah. The Jewish people are G’d’s Terumah (compare Jeremiah 2,3): “Israel is holy, the first of G’d’s harvest.” The Jewish people’s present situation was that they were in a vast cemetery (compare 12,30: “there was not a single house which did not contain a dead body”). If G’d would not contaminate Himself briefly in order to salvage the Jewish people, He would have to forego their existence permanently. Hence He decided to temporarily relax His rule and reveal Himself in a place not normally suitable for such a revelation in order to secure the continued existence of His Terumah, i.e. the Jewish people. After G’d had taken the Israelites out of Egypt, He said to Aaron: “please perform rites of purification for Me.” This is the meaning of Leviticus 16,33 and 16,16: “he shall provide atonement for the Sanctuary,” or “he shall provide atonement upon the Tent of Meeting and the altar.”

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.

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.]

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.

This month shall be for you the head of the months; it is the first for you among the months of the year.

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). 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. 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).

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, 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: “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: 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. According to the Midrashic interpretation, lachem (unto you) [in the verse, This month shall be unto you], means that “the Sanctification of the New Moon” 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. It is for this reason that the months have no individual names in the Torah. Instead, Scripture says: In the third month; 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; And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, etc., 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, 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 o...

So they made all their years lunar years, and each year their festival moves back eleven days, until thirty-three solar years equal thirty-four lunar years; but this is not according to the true principle.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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

החודש הזה לכם ראש חדשים, “this month shall be for you the beginning of the months, etc.” It is significant that at this juncture G’d did not instruct Moses and Aaron to relay the content of this message to the Jewish people. Surely the word לכם, “for you,” implied that the fixing of the new moon was a commandment applicable to each and every Israelite! Failure of G’d to issue the customary instruction: “say to all the Israelites, etc.,” therefore indicated that the determining of the new moon was something reserved for the elders of the people, a court of experts, and was not something incumbent on the individual Jew. This is why these instructions were addressed to both Moses and Aaron in their capacity as the experts at the time. The word לכם, in this instance means: “to the likes of you, to trained experts.” The word החודש הזה is a reference to the month of Nissan. The Torah calls it ראשון, “the first,” both here and again in verse 18. Seeing that the month of Tishrei is the first month in the compilation of years [something we have in common with the rest of mankind, Ed.] the Torah had to add the word לכם, “for you,” to show that Nissan is unique to the Jewish people as the first in our list of months. The implication is that we count these months as a symbol of the month in which we attained our freedom as a nation. It follows that wherever mention is made of the month of Tishrei, the Torah refers to it as the seventh month. This means it is the seventh following Nissan. Incidentally, this is the reason that the Torah has no names for the various months, but refers to them as a ordinal numbers, i.e. “second,” “third,” etc. By doing so the memory of the redemption from Egypt is constantly invoked when we read about any of the festivals which occur during certain months of the year. The names of the months such as Nissan, Iyar, Sivan, etc., have been introduced only after the Jewish people were exiled in Babylon (Talmud Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah 1,2). The reason the Jewish people adopted this change was that we have a prophetic announcement (Jeremiah 16,14-15) “assuredly, a time is coming —declares the Lord — when it shall no longer be said: ‘as the Lord lives Who brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt,’ but rather, ‘as the Lord lives Who brought the Israelites out of the northland, and out of all the lands to which He had banished them.’” This verse caused the Jews to adopt the names of Babylonian months after they were redeemed from there. Again, you find that the names of the months provide us with a memory of redemption, albeit a partial redemption unlike that from the land of Egypt. We learn from all this that the Torah itself did not give specific names to the months just as it did not assign specific names to the days of the week as is customary amongst the Gentile nations. We refer to the days of the week by their proximity or otherwise to the Sabbath, i.e. “the first day after Sabbath,” “the second day after Sabbath,” etc. We do this in order to maintain the centrality of the Sabbath in our calendar. This is the plain meaning of Exodus 20,8: “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” The Torah demands that we remember the Sabbath on a daily basis. When the Torah writes here: “this month shall be for you the head of the months,” the meaning is not that we must watch carefully if the new moon is clearly visible and that we are to establish the new moon or extend the last month according to the sighting of the new moon. Determining the need for an extra month does not depend on the sighting of the moon but on calculations. Rabbeinu Chananel also states clearly [Torah Shlemah by Rabbi M. Kasher pages 46-48] that we base our calendar on astronomical calculations rather than the sighting of the moon. For proof of this, consider the fact that during the Israelites’ wanderings in the desert for 40 years when their encampment was totally enveloped by the ענני הכבוד, G’d’s clouds of distinction, neither the people nor their leaders were able to sight the moon. They did not even see the sun by day either but depended totally on the pillar of cloud or fire to light the way for them. This is confirmed by Nechemyah 9,19: “You in Your abundant compassion did not abandon them in the wilderness. The pillar of cloud did not depart from them to lead them on the way by day, nor the pillar of fire by night to give them light. in the way where to go.” How would the Israelites have been able to fix the date of the new moon unless they had based themselves on their astronomical calculations? Clearly, the principal method of determining the new moon is based on calculations. We have an old-standing tradition that 5 of the 12 months of the year always have 30 days whereas 5 other months always have 29 days. The remaining 2 months fluctuate between 29 and 30 days respectively. In some years both of these months have 30 days, in some years both have 29 days, and in some years one of them has 29 days whereas the other month has 30 days. The two months which are subject to these variations are Cheshvan and Kislev. We have another tradition that the first day of Tishrei is New Year’s day, and that according to a ruling handed down by Moses from Sinai each “month” (lunar orbit) consists of 29 days, 12 hours and 793 parts [the hour is divided into 1080 equal parts] (Rosh Hashanah 25). All this is based on Chronicles I 12,33: “of the Issacharites, men who knew how to interpret the signs of the times to determine how Israel should act; their chiefs were two hundred, and all their kinsmen followed them.” No other matter requires as much knowledge and insight as determining the times of the calendar, the dates of the festivals based on comparison with the seasons determined by the solar calendar. Of course, if the new moon has been sighted everybody knows that a new month has begun, etc. It is easy then to calculate the tenth of the month to determine the day of Yom Kippur and the 15th of the month to determine the first day of Sukkot, etc. The sages needed to know what calculations are required in order to inform the people ahead of time what to expect and in order to check whether sightings of the new moon which had been claimed were in fact possible according to their charts. It is this aspect which the verse from Chronicles dealing with the Issacharites deals with. You will note that already during the time of David and Yonathan calculations formed the basis of the determination of the new moon as David said to Yonathan (Samuel I 20,5) “tomorrow, on the new moon I will sit beside the king, etc.” If the new moon had been determined merely by sighting, how did David know it would be observed on the morrow? Perhaps there would not be a sighting of the new moon by then? It is clear then that the date was determined by calculation if sightings failed to confirm these calculations. In fact, from that episode in Samuel I it is clear that already at that time the sages arranged for two consecutive days of new moon being observed seeing that we read in verses 24-27 of the same chapter: “The new moon came and the king sat down to partake of the meal...but David’s place remained vacant.... That day however Saul said nothing.... But on the day after the new moon, the second day, David’s place was vacant again, etc.” It is clearly impossible to say that the day described as “the second day” refers to another new moon the following month and that this is why they called it החודש השני. Saul asked Yonathan (verse 27) “why did not the son of Yishai come to the meal yesterday or the day before?” The story goes on: “Yonathan rose from his seat angrily and he did not eat on the second day of the new moon.” Clearly the date of the new moon was determined by means of calculations. This system was in effect for 1100 years from the time of Moses until the time of Antignos from Socho who, together with Shimon Hatzadik, was the leader of the Jewish people around the time Ezra and his colleagues came to Eretz Yisrael from Babylon. (Moses died in 2488 after the creation of Adam whereas Antignos lived around 3460 years after the creation of Adam.) Two of Antignos’ students, Tzadok and Beissus, were the ones who misunderstood their teacher’s meaning when he exhorted his students not to serve G’d like a servant who serves a human master for the sake of a reward, feeling entitled to it. Antignos urged his students to relate to the service of G’d as does a servant who volunteers to serve his master out of love and not out of a desire for reward. These two students thought that there was no system of reward and punishment in Judaism as a result of which they forsook the path of Torah. A by-product of their heresy was that they raised questions against the system of determining the time of the new moon, claiming that the principal mitzvah in observing the commandment of sanctifying the new moon was the sighting of it, not the calculations on paper. Such a new thesis forced the leading rabbis of that time to respond and to prove to these heretics that their calculations were accurate and more reliable than sightings so that Rabban Gamliel came out publicly saying not to be too concerned about whether an actual sighting had taken place. He claimed to have had a tradition from his grandfather that the month (lunar orbit) is never shorter than 29 days 12 hours and 793 parts. These words of Rabban Gamliel prove that he did not base his calendar on sightings but on astronomical calculations. We have an explicit Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 25) which states that “if both the elders of the court and the entire nation had clearly seen the new moon but it became night while the elders examined witnesses who testified to the sighting of the new moon before the elders were able to pronounce the new moon on the day just concluded, they would declare the month to have had 30 days.” This proves that the elders did not rely principally on the sighting. Had they done so, how could they have added another day to the month seeing not only the witnesses but they themselves had sighted the new moon on the previous night? Clearly, if they decided to make that month one of thirty days in spite of the sighting, they must have based themselves on their calculations. I can bring you even more compelling evidence. The Mishnah at the end of the second chapter in Rosh Hashanah records that two witnesses appeared claiming to have sighted the new moon at its appropriate time, i.e. the night between the 29th and the 30th of the month. They also claimed that on the following night, i.e. the night of the 31st, the moon had not appeared in the sky. Rabban Gamliel accepted their testimony. If Rabban Gamliel and his colleagues had been basing their declarations of the new moon only on sightings, how could he have accepted such testimony which contradicts all we know about the behaviour of the moon? Surely, the fact that the moon did not appear on the following night meant that the witnesses had lied in the first place! Clearly, Rabban Gamliel relied on his calculations in the first instance and when these proved that the new moon had been due to appear when it did he accepted the visual evidence that it had indeed been sighted on the appropriate night. As to the statement of the sages (folio 24) that Rabban Gamliel had a reproduction of the sky on the wall of his study which he employed to instruct laymen, the meaning is that he wanted to convince the supporters of Tzadok and Beissus of his absolute competence in astronomical matters from month to month. He wanted to show them beforehand in which manner and at what angle sightings of the moon after the end of the present month would occur. When these students noticed that Rabban Gamliel had correctly predicted where and when in the sky sightings of the new moon would occur, he managed to discredit Tzadok ad Beissus who had tried to undermine the authority of the Jewish Supreme Court. As a result, the allegations against the calendar calculations of the leading elders of the Jewish people ceased. Nonetheless, the practice of encouraging people to come forward as witnesses to new-moon sightings continued but primarily as a reminder of an established custom, not as something of halachic necessity. It is unanimously agreed that the authority to determine calendar adjustments is vested in the hands of the Jewish Supreme Court or its equivalent as something handed down from the time of Moses, provided such court is composed of the most knowledgeable and G’d-fearing people of their generation This is the law which G’d commanded to Moses in our verse here. The words החודש הזה לכם, may therefore be translated as “you have authority to delegate the adjustments which may have to be made to this month.” Thus far the commentary of Rabbeinu Chananel. This authority delegated by G’d to the Rabbinical authorities is of such fundamental significance that we read in Sanhedrin 42 that if the Jewish people had not been granted the opportunity to perform any other commandment except to recite the benediction over the new moon once a month and to thereby welcome the eternal presence of the Shechinah, this would be deemed sufficient for them. They base this on the wording החודש הזה, here and זה אלי ואנוהו, “this is my G’d and I wish to exalt Him” in Exodus 15,2. What this Midrash is trying to tell us is that the verse here is an explanation of the peculiarly worded text of the benediction recited when blessing the new moon. It is an allusion to כנסת ישראל, the Jewish people as a spiritual concept, so called as it is a crown, sanctified and the exclusive property of the people of Israel, who are referred to as עמוסי בטן, (Isaiah 46,3) “transported by G’d on His arms ever since their inception” (in the house of Lavan). Seeing that he who utters this benediction finds himself in the presence of the Shechinah, he must recite it while standing (not while seated). This ensures that he is conscious of the necessary awe when in the presence of G’d. Reciting the benediction over the new moon is equivalent to testifying to the fact that G’d created the universe and all that is in it. This is the principal pillar of our religious faith. Seeing the moon renews itself month after month makes it easy to understand that G’d created one universe after another. Some unidentified sages have said that the black colour we observe on part of the moon serves as a reminder of the Israelites who are in exile and who count their months based on the lunar orbits. Concerning this phenomenon Solomon said (Song of Songs 6,10) יפה כלבנה, ברה כחמה, ”beautiful as the moon, brilliant as the sun.” G’d granted beauty to the moon and brilliance to the sun. The reason is that the moon resembles woman’s lower physiognomy in that it is activated by the male. The moon similarly receives its input from the sun. This is also the meaning of the statement in Ketuvot 59: “woman exists for the sake of beauty” [rather than for the performance of menial labour. Ed.]. Speaking of the sun, however, Solomon used the term ברה, as its light is clear, distinct. Seeing that Solomon used different adjectives in describing moon and sun it is clear that the moon lacks brilliance. You need not be surprised at the choice of metaphors by Solomon as the Shechinah which accompanies the Jewish people in their exile and which reflects the strength of the moon is also feeling the pain of the Jewish people in their troubles. We know this from Isaiah 63,9: “In all their troubles He was troubled.” Shemot Rabbah 15,26 approaches our verse from a different angle saying that the words: “this month is yours, etc.,” describe G’d’s promise to the Jewish people even before He took them out of Egypt that Jewish sovereignty would not exceed thirty generations corresponding to the number of days in a month. I have already written on this subject when I commented on Genesis 38,30: “he called his name Zerach.” Another part of that same Midrash understands the opening words of the verse as meaning that in this world the Jewish people would count according to the moon, i.e. that the moon is given to the Jewish people as a gift in order that they can count their months by means of it. The moon is considered as superior to the sun as it is visible by day and by night, suggesting that the Jewish people have an existence both in this world and in the world to come. The descendants of Esau, however, count in this world by means of the orbits of the sun which has been described in the Torah (Genesis 1,16) as “the great luminary.” In the future, however, this great luminary will be made subservient to those who will be called “small,” by G’d, (compare Jeremiah 49,15) “For I will make you smallest among nations, etc.” [The prophet addresses Edom, the spiritual descendant of Esau]. At that time the (previously) small luminary, i.e. the Jewish people, will become big, the nation whom G’d calls big as we read in Deuteronomy 4,8 “and which is a great nation such as this, etc.” The descendants of those who count according to the sun’s orbits will eventually be judged by means of the sun, i.e. they will be burned by the fiery heat of the sun as we know from Malachi 3,19. The entire matter can be understood by means of a parable. A king got engaged to a lady and wrote her a marriage settlement in which he gave her a few relatively minor gifts. Once the marriage was consummated, he wrote her a contract bequeathing to her very large gifts. The relationship between G’d and the Jewish people is somewhat similar. In this world G’d got “engaged” to the Jewish people as we know from Hoseah 2,21: “I will espouse you forever.” At that stage of our relationship with G’d He gave us only the moon, as we read in our verse “this moon is for you.” However, in the days of the messiah there will occur the consummation of our relationship with G’d. We know this from Isaiah 54,5 “for He who is your mate is the One Who has made you. The Lord G’d of Hosts is His name.” When that time arrives G’d will hand over to Israel all that is spelled out in the second marital agreement. According to Shemot Rabbah end of chapter 15, this is the meaning of Daniel 12,3 “and the knowledgeable will be radiant like the brightness of the expanse of the sky.” We find an interesting halachah in Tractate Sofrim 19,10 as well as in the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 9,2) that one does not recite the benediction over the new moon except on the night following the Sabbath when one is still in a state of “fragrance,” i.e. surrounded by the joyful aura of the Sabbath and wearing Sabbath garments. When reciting this benediction one is to stand at attention facing the moon and to jump up and down three times reciting the formula: “blessed be your Creator, blessed be the One Who sanctifies you. Just as I jump in your direction without being able to touch you (with harmful intent) so those who wish to harm me may jump without achieving their aim. May fear and trepidation overcome all those; since Your arm is mighty may they be struck dumb as stone” (Exodus 15,15).

This month is for you the head of months, it is the first for you of the months of the year. Since the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Moses with His finger the moon in its renewal, saying “like this, observe and sanctify,” therefore it first says this month [chodesh], meaning “this renewal [chidush] will be for you the head of months.” Whenever you see the renewal of the moon in this form, it will be for you the head [beginning] of months in all the months of the year. And after giving a known sign for the days of all the months of the year to make them heads for all the days of the month that follow them, it says in general about the entire month it is the first for you of the months of the year to make the entire month of Nisan the first of all other months of the year. And it says for you… for you twice because the first “for you” speaks of the sanctification of the month, which is entrusted only to the court, and refers to Moses and Aaron who were mentioned before. And the second “for you” is to indicate that the world was created in Tishrei according to Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion (Rosh Hashanah 10a). Therefore it says “for you” to indicate that all nations should count from Tishrei as the beginning of the year, but “for you” alone it is appropriate to count from Nisan so that the remembrance of the exodus from Egypt will always be between your eyes, like many commandments in the Torah that came to remember the exodus from Egypt. And in the same way it is said Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy (Exodus 20:8), that we should count all days as “first of the Sabbath, second of the Sabbath,” so that the Sabbath day will always be a remembrance between our eyes, indicating the renewal of the world, since renewal is evidence of its Renewer. Similarly with the months, He commanded us to count all the months from Nisan as mentioned. Therefore it says it is the first for you, but not for other nations because they have no part in remembering the exodus from Egypt. And this agrees with the words of Rabbi Eliezer. We need to provide an additional explanation, as to why He began all the commandments with the sanctification of the new moon, and why this commandment was placed adjacent to the commandment of the Passover sacrifice. The explanation for this is that the Egyptians believed that the zodiac sign of Aries [the ram] shepherded all of existence, for a zodiac sign [can] make one wise, a zodiac sign [can] make one wealthy (Shabbat 156a). Therefore, all shepherds are an abomination to Egypt because it is inappropriate to say that the leader [the ram] should be led by others, for it is the shepherd. For this reason, God commanded to slaughter the Passover sacrifice, because the zodiac sign of Aries is the first and firstborn of all the zodiac signs, and through the slaughter of the ram, God will punish the host of heaven on high and afterward it will descend upon the earth upon all the firstborn of Egypt. Now, the month of Nisan is the time when the sun enters the zodiac sign of Aries, and this month was made the head of the months of the year so that the remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt would always be before our eyes. There is a concern that perhaps through this commandment, it might give an opportunity to those who err to dispute and say that because of the importance of the zodiac sign of Aries, which serves in this month, this month was made the head of the months of the year. Therefore, the living God immediately commanded to slaughter the ram in sight of all observers, and to take it on the 10th of the month, in the first third of the month, for it is then that the zodiac sign is at its strongest, yet it is powerless to save the sheep under its dominion. Through this, they would recognize and know that there is a God high above all that is high. Therefore, He placed the commandment of sanctifying the month before [the commandment of the Passover sacrifice] because He commanded to take the lamb on the 10th of the month, so He needed to inform him from which day to begin counting these 10 days. And He said to him, See like this and sanctify, and from that day onward he should count these 10 days to make known the weakness of the firstborn of the zodiac signs, and with its punishment, all the firstborn of Egypt who placed their confidence in the firstborn of the zodiac signs would be punished. This is the reason why He gave them commandments to engage with the blood of the Passover sacrifice and the blood of circumcision, for the blood of the Passover sacrifice was to nullify the belief of those who believed in the zodiac sign of Aries, and the blood of circumcision because it says regarding Passover, No uncircumcised person shall eat of it. And Rabbi Matitya ben Cheresh would expound, (Mekhilta 5:28) that since they did not have commandments to engage in etc., but his words are difficult to understand, for our Sages said (Vayikra Rabbah 32:5) that our forefathers were redeemed from Egypt due to four merits: that they did not change their names or language, they were restrained from immoral relations, and there were no informers among them. Furthermore, the expression “to engage in them” is problematic; it should have said “they did not have commandments through which they would be redeemed by their merit.” Rather, certainly Rabbi Matitya also holds that they had these four commandments, however, those commandments were passive [refraining from action], and they needed commandments to actively engage in, for our Sages said (Sotah 21a) that a mitzvah, [only] at the time one is engaged in it, protects and saves. And here they also needed protection so that the destroyer would not enter their homes. Therefore, they needed the blood of the Passover sacrifice and circumcision to engage in, in order to nullify the belief in the zodiac sign of the ram. And this is what Rashi explained: “Draw your hands away from idolatry and take for yourselves a sheep for a commandment.”

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.

'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, 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: 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.

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.

Speak to the whole congregation of Israel, saying: On the tenth of this month they shall take for themselves each man a lamb for his father's house, a lamb for a household.

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). 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). 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). 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).

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. 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 Rabbis 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: “Take you lambs and slaughter the gods of Egypt.”

"Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel" — for all who are obligated by commandments are duty-bound. "And they shall take for themselves" — whoever has livestock from his own flocks, for they had great flocks, or they may purchase. Yefet said that from the tenth of the month they would begin to prepare the lamb for the fourteenth only, but we do not know whether this is a commandment for all generations or applied only to the Passover in Egypt. "A lamb per household of their fathers" — if the household is small. "A lamb per house" — if they are numerous. And after saying "a lamb per household of their fathers," he said "a lamb per house and house." I explained the word "house" (beit) at the beginning of this book.

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. 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. 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. 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? 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 f...

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 this first 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.] 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. שה לבית אבות, “one lamb for each family.” Residents of the same house must share a lamb, regardless of their family ties[, unless additional lambs are needed, and then they can take two or more]. שה לבית, “one lamb per house.” Having at least one lamb in each house was to demonstrate compliance with God's command to kill and eat an Egyptian deity.

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

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 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.)

But if the household is too small to be counted for a lamb, he and his neighbor who is nearest to his house shall take according to the number of persons; each man according to his eating shall you be counted for the lamb.

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). במכסת means ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER. Similar is, (Leviticus 27:23) “The number (מכסת) of thy valuation”. 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). תכסו means ye shall number yourselves, as the Targum renders it. (It is not to be translated: ye shall number others.)

"But if the household is too small for a lamb" — meaning too few people to eat the lamb — the members of that household shall join with their neighbor. "According to the counting" (be-mikhsat): [mikhsat means] portion; similarly, "the levy (ha-mekheś) for Hashem" (Num. 31:37) means the portion each one takes. Comparable to: "Hashem is the portion of my share and my cup" (Ps. 16:5). Also, tikhśu — this verb belongs to the doubled-root class (pi'el type), and the doubling is missing from the word miksat and from mekheś. He used the form ha-mekheś on the pattern of va-yamer le-yolad'to (Prov. 17:25), which is also of the doubled-root class.

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. 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. 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. 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." 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. 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...

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)

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. 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.

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

A perfect male lamb in its first year shall you have; from the lambs and from the goats you shall take it.

תמים PERFECT i. e. without blemish (Mekhilta). 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). 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).

"A lamb without blemish" — it must be without any defect. The word seh [lamb] applies to either of the two species, since the name for flocks (tzon) encompasses both; so too: "a lamb of the sheep and a lamb of the goats" (Deut. 14:4). Rabbi Moses ben Amram the Persian said that the lamb was obligatory for the Passover in Egypt, but in the Land of Israel a lamb or a bull [was permitted], citing: "You shall slaughter the Passover-offering to Hashem your God — sheep and cattle" (Deut. 16:2), which he takes as the Passover for all generations. But he did not speak correctly, for all the Passover-offerings of later generations are a remembrance of the Passover in Egypt, and it is not fitting to change them. Rather, "you shall slaughter the Passover-offering to Hashem your God" — sheep is obligatory, and "cattle" refers to the peace-offerings eaten at the festival after cooking in water. Similarly: "you shall rejoice at your festival, you and your son and your daughter" (Deut. 16:14) — you [the father] are obligated, your son and daughter are optional. The proof is in Chronicles, which states that on the fourteenth day they slaughtered lambs and bulls, and it is written there that the lambs were for the Passover-offerings and the bulls for peace-offerings; they boiled them in pots and cauldrons, while the flocks alone were roasted as prescribed. Rabbi Yeshu'ah said there is a distinction between "ben shanah" (one year old) and "ben shnato" (in its year): "ben shanah" means a full year has elapsed for it, while "ben shnato" means literally in its [first] year. Thus in the offerings of the tribal princes it is written "one lamb in its year" (Num. 7:21), while at the end it is written "lambs one year old" (Num. 7:23).

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, “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, “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.

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.

And you shall keep it for watching until the fourteenth day of this month, and the whole assembly, the congregation of Israel, shall slaughter it between the evenings.

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). 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; Kiddushin 41b). 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). 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), because the sun then inclines in the direction of the place of its setting to become dark...

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, 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).” 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’ [‘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. [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, 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 said 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] 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, and this is at night, as it clearly states, And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread. Similarly, And there was ‘erev’ and there was morning, 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, [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; And it came to pass ‘ba’erev’ that the quails came up, and the quails did not come at night. There are many other such cases. It is further written: ‘Erev,’ and morning, and at noonday, I will sigh and moan. Now thes...

"And it shall be kept by you" — each person shall keep it in his house. "Between the two evenings" (bein ha-arbayim): this is a difficult phrase. Our teacher Solomon [Rashi] said it means the moment the sun inclines westward, from midday onward, but he gave no reason why "evenings" is in the dual. Now, it is written: "when Aaron kindles the lamps between the two evenings" (30:8), and there is no doubt that he kindled the lamps at sundown. When we investigated this phrase we found that the moment called bein ha-arbayim is called erev (evening), for it is written: "between the two evenings you shall eat meat" (16:12), and there it says: "in the evening (ba-erev) Hashem will give you meat to eat" (16:8). And concerning the kindling of the lamps it is written: "Aaron and his sons shall arrange it from evening until morning" (27:21). And it is written: "burnt-offerings to Hashem, morning and evening" (Ezra 3:3). And: "the second lamb you shall offer between the two evenings" (29:39). Now concerning the Passover, for which it is written "between the two evenings," we find: "there you shall slaughter the Passover-offering in the evening, as the sun comes in (ke-vo ha-shemesh), at the appointed time of your going out from Egypt" (Deut. 16:6). The meaning of ke-vo ha-shemesh is as the sun moves toward the west — and this does not imply its actual setting, for it is the opposite of the sun's rising. As it is written, "the sun rose (yatza) over the land" (Gen. 19:23), meaning it began to appear over the earth; and likewise "the sun sets (ba) and becomes pure" (Lev. 22:7) means it is no longer visible over the earth. And it is written regarding a nocturnal occurrence: "it shall be toward evening (lifnot erev) that he shall bathe in water" (Deut. 23:12). If this is not so, let someone explain for us what is the difference between the "sun's coming in" of the Passover and the "sun's coming in" of the nocturnal occurrence; and similarly "the sun sets and he becomes pure" (Lev. 22:7). The sectarians (ha-minim) said there are three evenings, citing their proof: "until the third evening" (1 Sam. 20:5) — but they neither recognized nor understood the truth. For it is written: "tomorrow is the new moon...and on the third day descend greatly" (1 Sam. 20:18–19), meaning when the third day comes from the day adjacent to the evening when you are hiding in the field; that is why it says "until the third evening." Now I shall return to explain. Know that the grammatical form arbayim always follows the pattern of a dual, like avnayim (birth-stool, Exod. 1:16) and luḥotayim (two boards, Ezek. 27:5), and likewise derachayim (two ways, Prov. 28:6), and the proof is: "it falls into one" (ibid.). Similarly shamayim [heavens/sky], for these are the two poles of the celestial sphere, which are like fixed pegs upon which the sphere turns — so too, "to plant the heavens" (Isa. 51:16). I have also explained in the Book of the Glorious Name that shamayim derives from sham yashar nekhach immo (Job 23:7), an allusion to two places. We thus have two "evenings": the first is the evening of the sun, meaning the time of its entry below the earth; the second is the entry of its visible light into the clouds — and between them is nearly one and a third hours. During that interval, one who had a seminal emission enters the camp, and Aaron kindles the lamps. The Gaon Rav Saadia said: the altar of the burnt-offering measured five cubits by five cubits, and in that space only a few priests could stand to dash the blood of the Passover-offerings before it congealed. In the days of Josiah, when Israel was sparse, the priests could not dash the blood of the Passover-offerings and peace-offerings within one and a third hours — how much more so when all the tribes were in their land! It was therefore a received tradition to begin the slaughtering from the moment it is clearly apparent that the sun has inclined westward; Scripture mentioned "between the two evenings" because most of the Passover-offerings were slaughtered during that period, which is the end of the time — they must not go beyond the final evening of the sun's light.

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.

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.” 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. 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. 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 only to the activities other than the actual slaughtering of the Paschal lamb. [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. Ed.] 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, so he cannot claim that he did not do anything. They must all be partners (financially) in performing this commandment. בין הערבים, “in the hours after the labourers have completed their daily chores.”

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 with מועד 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.

And they shall take some of the blood and place it on the two doorposts and on the lintel, upon the houses in which they will eat it.

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). המזוזת THE SIDE POSTS — These are the upright posts, one on this side of the entrance and one on that side. 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. 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 and הגהות הגר״א thereon).

"Upon the two doorposts" — of the entrance to the house. Moses will explain further below how they are to take the blood. The word mashkof derives from the same root as chalon (window, Gen. 8:6) and va-yashkef (he looked out, Gen. 26:8); this lintel is above the doorway of the house. Such is the custom throughout the land of the Ishmaelites, while the custom of the Egyptians differed from it — even in their food, such as "break it into pieces" (Lev. 2:6) — and so too with women's ornaments of nose-rings and ear-rings, and all that Isaiah mentioned regarding the daughters of Zion. And so too they have no house but a courtyard: one entrance is called the doorway of the house and the outer one the gate of the courtyard. Many have said that putting the blood on the lintel and the two doorposts was to show that they were publicly slaughtering the abomination of the Egyptians, since the Egyptians' fear had already fallen upon them, and they were not afraid of being stoned. But if this were so, the blood would have been placed on the outer gate of the courtyard, yet the blood was placed only in private — they closed the outer gate and slaughtered between the evenings, when no one could be seen, since it was close to nightfall; and no man went out of his doorway until morning, for they each went their way and closed their courtyard gate, the Egyptians thinking they would return. Rather, the meaning of placing the blood on the lintel is that it should serve as an atonement for all who eat in the house, and as a sign for the Destroyer to see it — as in the manner of "Make a mark, a tav" (Ezek. 9:4). The word battim [houses] is grammatically unusual, having a dagesh after a large qamatz, which is not the rule — unless the qamatz were a reduced vowel (ḥatef), as in rannu shamayim (Isa. 44:23). Perhaps it is so because of the missing yod of beit [the root], lest this form be confused with aseret ha-battim homer (Ezek. 45:14), which has a pataḥ as the plural vowel, from ha-eifah ve-ha-bat (Ezek. 45:11). The phrase "upon the houses" (al ha-battim) indicates that the accent is on the penultimate syllable, contrary to the normal rule.

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

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.

“And they shall put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel.” And Moses changed the order and said, And you shall touch it to the lintel and to the two doorposts. According to the midrashic approach (Eichah Rabbah 5:21), we can say that they said that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel (Malachi 3:7), Return to Me first, and afterward I will return to you. And the congregation of Israel responds, “I do not have the strength to return first; rather, You be the one who initiates,” as it is said (Lamentations 5:21), Return us, O Lord, to You, and afterward, and we will return. In this way, it can be interpreted that the lintel [mashkof] represents the Holy One, blessed be He, who is above all, as it is said (Psalms 102:20), For He looked down [hishkif] from His holy height. And the two doorposts that support the lintel represent the merit of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, as it is written (Deuteronomy 33:27), The eternal God is a dwelling place, and underneath are the everlasting arms. For the Patriarchs are beneath the Divine Chariot, and they are the arms of the world [such that the lintels would represent the arms]. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, as one who gives honor to those who fear Him, And they shall put it on the two doorposts first, and afterward on the lintel, suggesting that the righteous descendants of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs should be the ones to initiate. But Moses said, And you shall touch it to the lintel first, because we do not have the strength to initiate. And some say, that it is according to what Rashi explained in Song of Songs (7:2) that Israel praises the Holy One, blessed be He, from top to bottom, but the Holy One, blessed be He, counts their praise from bottom to top. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, mentioned the doorposts before the lintel to indicate that the divine abundance rises from below, because the righteous add strength to the divine power above. However, out of respect, Moses mentioned the lintel before the doorposts to indicate that the divine abundance descends from above to below, as this is the respectful way toward the Blessed Name. And if you wish to say that the two doorposts correspond to Moses and Aaron, this also makes sense, because the Holy One, blessed be He, showed them honor, and they showed honor to the Blessed Name.

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.]

And they shall eat the flesh on that night, roasted over fire, and unleavened bread; with bitter herbs they shall eat it.

את הבשר AND THEY SHALL EAT] THE FLESH — but not the sinews and bones (Mekhilta). 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).

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 herbs means “with”; And they came both men ‘al’ women [means “with” the women]; its head ‘al’ its legs ‘v’al’ the inwards thereof [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. 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) [the word missing a beth, which would make it b’mayim, (with water)]; And Seled died ‘lo’ (no) children, [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. Concerning unleavened bread, however, Scripture repeated it by commanding, At even ye shall eat unleavened bread, even by itself [when there is no Passover-offering], as is the opinion of our Rabbis. 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.

"They shall eat it with bitter herbs." One of the sages of Spain said: it is known that moisture is dominant in Egypt on account of the Nile's waters and because no rain falls there — the air is perpetually humid. Therefore their custom was to have at every meal many kinds of bitter herbs — plants and mustard — and even if an Egyptian had nothing but bread, bitter herbs would always be on his table for dipping the bread, as they are a remedy suited to their climate. But we rely on the view of our ancient teachers, who explained that the bitter herbs are a remembrance for "they embittered their lives" (1:14).

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. 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. 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. 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 en...

ואכלו את הבשר בלילה “they are to eat the meat during this night;” at the time when all people are at home. בלילה הזה, “during this night.” (On the night between the 14-15th of Nissan.) 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. 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.

צלי אש ומצות, “roasted on the fire together with unleavened bread.” The expression צלי אש used by the Torah here can mean either that the meat is roasted over coals inside a stove or that it is barbecued with a rotating spit over an open fire. The Torah excluded a kind of “roasting” which involved water. Boiling the meat in the ordinary fashion was most certainly out of the question. This is why the verse specifically tells us that even the kind of roasting involving water was not permissible (verse 9). The repetition of the words כי אם צלי אש meant that it was not to be roasted in a pot. This was exceptional as other meat-offerings were allowed to be prepared for eating in such pots (Zevachim 91). When the sages (Chulin 132) said that the sections of an animal sacrifice given to the priest may be consumed after they have been roasted (apparently excluding boiling), this is based on the word למשחה, “for a distinction,” in Numbers 18,8 and means that seeing kings prefer this method of preparing meat, the priests are allowed to prepare it in that way. However, if they prefer to boil the meat they are at liberty to do so. This appears to raise the problem of Deut. 16, 6-7 where the Torah writes: “there you will slaughter the Passover in the evening when the sun sets on the date (anniversary) you left Egypt. You will boil it and eat it in a place that the Lord your G’d will choose, etc.” There appears to be a contradiction here. Our sages dispose of this by saying that in Deut. the Torah does not refer to “boiling” involving water but “boiling it on actual fire” similar to what we find in connection with the famous Passover celebration during the reign of King Yoshiyahu. Chronicles II 35,13 reports: ויבשלו הפסח באש כמשפט, “they roasted the Passover on fire according to law.” This is clear evidence that the expression בשל, normally translated as “boiling,” need not refer to preparation of food in a pot with water, but is simply a description of making food fit to be eaten. Sometimes this means using different kinds of pots such as are mentioned in that same verse in Chronicles we have quoted; other times it means preparation involving only fire. The author quotes the Spanish word sazonas to describe the meaning of Genesis 40,10 in which the Torah speaks of grapes which had ripened. “Ripening” is a form of “boiling” or “cooking,” i.e. becoming fit to eat. When the Torah emphasises here צלי אש, it excludes the use of a container for preparing this meat. A Midrashic approach (Shemot Rabbah 15,13): the symbolic significance of insisting that the Passover be prepared over the fire was to remind the people that G’d had saved Avraham from the fire of Nimrod’s furnace. The symbolic meaning of the unleavened bread to be consumed simultaneously with the meat of the Passover was a reminder of the three cakes of unleavened dough that Sarah baked for the three angels who visited Avraham and told him on that date that Sarah would give birth to Yitzchak within a year. The symbolic meaning of the bitter herbs to be consumed as part of that meal is to remind us that just as the descendants of Avraham had been persecuted in Egypt, so they in turn would persecute the descendants of Esau. The symbolic meaning of the command not to leave over any part of the edible meat until morning is a reminder that not a single soul of the Egyptian firstborns survived that memorable night. The symbolic meaning of “with girded loins and your shoes on your feet” (verse 11), was to depict people who are eager to be on their way to a new destination. It is a fact that as far as the substance of the Passover is concerned the legislation recorded here was to remain in effect for all future generations also, but the details such as girded loins and smearing blood on the doorpost were only required during the Exodus in Egypt.

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.

'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.

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.

Do not eat any of it raw, nor at all boiled in water, but only roasted over fire — its head with its legs and with its innards.

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). 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). 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.). 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 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.

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., and the blood which is to be on the lintel — 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. [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.

"Na." Some say it means as the meat is now, i.e., raw, but such usage is unattested anywhere in Scripture. Others said it derives from ki heinei aviha otah (Num. 30:6), meaning "broken" — but this is not correct either, for Scripture afterward says "you shall not break a bone of it" (v. 46). In my view the correct interpretation is that it has no parallel in Scripture, and its meaning is the opposite of "cooked," i.e., what is called chay (raw), as in: "do not take from you boiled (mevushal) flesh but raw (chai)" (1 Sam. 2:15). I have already noted that Arabic closely resembles Hebrew; the Arabs call raw meat nayy, and the letters alef-heh-vav-yod are interchangeable in their language as in ours. "Uvshal" ["boiled"]: this is an adjective, meaning cooked in water, for even roasted [meat] can be called "boiled" (mevushal), as in: "you shall boil and eat" (Deut. 16:7), and "they boiled the Passover-offering with fire according to the rule" (2 Chron. 35:13). It is also possible that uvshal refers to cooking as prepared for kings: they place a wide copper vessel over the fire, fill it halfway with water, and once the water boils, they place a pot of meat with cold water upon the boiling water, and thus the meat cooks. This method of cooking is more beneficial than any [direct] proximity to fire. — Here I, the author, add to the words of this scholar [the sage of Spain] as I heard from him: uvshal is an adjective on the pattern of kaved (heavy), zaken (old); and here uvshal has a qamatz under the bet and a rafe shin — it is not an infinitive, in the way of ki kaved akhab'deka (Num. 22:17) or hakkeh takkeh (Deut. 13:16), for an infinitive combined [with a finite verb] always comes in the past or future form, such as dabber yedabber (Exod. 4:14) or haqdesh hiqdashtiv (Judg. 17:3); an infinitive combined with both the subject and the object does not occur. So this bashal is like kaved, and in the feminine: "the boiled (beshelah) foreleg" (Num. 6:19). Do not wonder at the need to state both matters — bashal and mevushal — for they denote two distinct methods of cooking, as the [sage] explained: one is to enclose the meat-vessel within the vessel of boiling water; and the plural of these adjectives is: beshalim mevushalim — just as the Sages say ḥakhamim meḥukhamim, "wise and most wise." So too one says of an individual: ḥakham meḥukham, barukh u-mevorakh — and there is a distinction in the grammar of the language between ḥakham and meḥukham, just as there is between bashal and mevushal, as [the sage] explained. "Its head with its legs and with its innards" — "with" here means "together with," as in "the men came with (al) the women" (35:22). The head and legs are rinsed in water according to the rule.

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 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 נא introduces a request as opposed to a command. 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.

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.

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.].

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.

And you shall not leave any of it until morning; whatever remains of it until morning you shall burn in fire.

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; Pesachim 83b; Shabbat 24b).

"And that which remains of it" — if one was unavoidably unable to eat his portion. Yefet said it refers to the bones, but this is not correct, for Scripture speaks only of what normally occurs.

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. 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.

And thus shall you eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste. It is the Passover before Hashem.

מתניכם חגרים YOUR LOINS GIRDED — i. e. prepared for the journey (Mekhilta). 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" 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.

The meaning of "and thus you shall eat it" applies only to the Passover in Egypt. The sectarians who are in Urgel still do this today as a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt — and all these who go astray in spirit depart on the fifteenth of the month from their place as a remembrance of the Exodus. "And your staff in your hand" — to guide the donkeys, as in "he struck the donkey with the staff" (Num. 22:27). The meaning of "in haste" is that they should not linger but eat quickly, before the moment arrives when the Destroyer comes and Hashem passes over the entrance. This is why Hashem commanded that it be roasted on fire, so that it would be ready quickly. Our holy ancestors likewise said: it may be eaten only until midnight, and only when roasted.

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.

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

“And you shall eat it in haste.” In the Mekhilta, it concludes that this refers to the haste of the Divine Presence, but in the future it is written For you shall not go out in haste, etc. (Isaiah 42:12). The explanation of this matter is that regarding this redemption it is written And the Lord went before them, implying but not behind them, because Egypt was full of idols, therefore there was no place for the Divine Presence there. Therefore, you shall go in haste in order to quickly receive the Divine Presence. But in the future, the Divine Presence will be both before them and behind them, therefore they will not need to go in haste after the Divine Presence, for it would appear as if they were fleeing from the Divine Presence that was behind them. This is what is meant by For you shall not go out in haste, nor go in flight, for the Lord goes before you, and the God of Israel will be your rear guard. Another interpretation: Because for the salvation of Israel, God departed from His place to an impure land, and the Divine Presence was hastening to leave, therefore the Israelites also needed to go hurriedly after God.

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.

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.

And I will be revealed in the land of Egypt on that night, and I will strike every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from man to beast; and upon all the idols of Egypt I will execute judgments — I am Hashem.

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) but in this case all were punished at a single passage and in one moment. 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). מאדם עד בהמה FROM MAN TO BEAST — He who first began the wrongdoing, from him began the punishment (Mekhilta). 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)). אעשה שפטים אני ה I WILL EXECUTE JUDGEMENTS, I, THE LORD — I, Myself, and not by means of a messenger (Pesikta Zotarta).

AND AGAINST ALL THE GODS OF EGYPT WILL I EXECUTE JUDGMENTS. The idol of wood rotted, and the one of metal melted. Now Scripture did not elucidate the nature of these judgments because the vanities by which they are instructed are but timber. 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, 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, 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. 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. Thus He subdued the power of the Egyptians and that of the lords over them. But Scripture hints and deals briefly with hidden matters. I WILL EXECUTE JUDGMENTS: I AM THE ETERNAL. “I Myself and not by means of the messenger.” Thus the language of Rashi. But the Midrash of the Sages is not so. Instead, the Midrash reads: “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, 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 David and Sennacherib. “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. “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: “The Holy One, blessed be He, was the mattatron (guide) for Moses,...

"And I will pass through the land of Egypt" — for Hashem's power and might are what pass through, as though Hashem Himself passes. "And upon all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments" — as in the manner of "the head of Dagon had fallen before him upon the ground" (1 Sam. 5:4), and likewise it is written: "and upon their gods did Hashem execute judgments" (Num. 33:4).

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

“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. Another explanation: בכל אלהי מצרים - against all the ministers of Pharaoh. 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.

ועברתי בארץ מצרים, “and I will go through the land of Egypt, etc.” This whole paragraph is meant to be something that Moses and Aaron were to tell the Israelites. We would therefore have expected the Torah to write at this point ועבר בארץ מצרים, “and He will go through the land of Egypt,” rather than “and I will go through the land of Egypt.” The unusual change in syntax here prompted our sages the Haggadah shel Pessach to say that the emphasis on the ending תי, after the ועבר which we would have expected teaches that G’d meant that He personally and not any agent of His would execute all the firstborns. They phrase it as אני ולא מלאך, אני ולא שרף, אני ולא השליח, אני ה', “I and not an angel; I and not a category of agent known as Saraph; I and not someone whom I usually delegate such a task to; I, all by Myself.” When G’d killed an army of 185,000 Assyrians (Kings II 19,35) many hundreds of years later on the anniversary of that date, He employed an angel to carry out His decree. This time He did not delegate the task. והכתי כל בכור, “I will smite every firstborn;” again we have the emphasis on “I, not a saraph.” Not only the dying but the smiting, the plague resulting in death will be inflicted by Me personally. I will not act like a king who delegates unpleasant duties to be performed by underlings. The “saraph” mentioned by our sages are the kind of angels that burned the soldiers sent to capture Elijah and whom he commanded to be burned (compare Kings II 1,10). ובכל אלוהי מצרים אעשה שפטים, “and against all the deities of Egypt I will carry out judgments.” Again G’d employs the pronoun “I” to emphasise that He would not employ any delegate such as the angel Mattatron who normally is in charge of matters pertaining to the terrestrial part of the universe. The meaning of the word “Mattaron” transliterated is מורה דרך, someone teaching the way. A messenger is called Mentor in Greek. 'אני ה', “I the Eternal.” I and no one but I. G’d emphasizes His uniqueness, indicating that the reason He will do all this by Himself is to remind us that there is No On like Him. Nachmanides writes that the emphasis on the words אני ה' is that inasmuch as G’d is supreme and unique there is no one who could interfere with what He sets out to do. Nachmanides wants to explain that had G’d employed any assistants in this plague then the plague would have occurred as an extension of His “intensified,” מתוחה, attribute of Justice. If this had been the case His delegates would not have been able to distinguish between Jewish and Egyptian firstborns seeing that from the vantage point of that attribute they had not deserved to be saved. This is why G’d had no choice but to carry out this plague unassisted without delegates. The aspect of G’d which carried out this plague was the Shechinah which is comprised of a mixture of the attribute of Mercy and the attribute of Justice. This is the meaning of what the sages referred to as “not by means of a messenger.” In other words, G’d performed the plague all by Himself. This is reflected in the use of the word אנכי for the name of G’d in connection with this plague. That term is an allusion to the Shechinah. We refer, of course, to the warning: הנה אנכי הורג את בכורך (Exodus 4,23) “Here I am going to kill your firstborn.” G’d used the same attribute describing Himself there as He had with Yaakov in Genesis 46,4 when He told him that He (His Shechinah) would accompany him down to Egypt and would also accompany him on the way back from there. G’d had already used that name אנכי describing Himself in Genesis 15,14 when He told Avraham about the distant future when his descendants would be enslaved prior to their redemption. It meant already at that time that the attribute which would exact retribution from the nation enslaving Avraham’s descendants would be the one known as אנכי. This is also what is meant in 12,27 “when He smote the Egyptians and He saved our houses.” Rashi, quoting Mechilta, explains the meaning of “on all the deities of Egypt I shall execute judgments” as that if these idols were made of wood, the wood would rot, whereas if they had been made of metal the metal would melt” [seeing that one cannot kill what has never been alive, the Mechilta wanted to illustrate what the words “judgments” when applied to idols could possibly mean. Ed.] When the Torah gets around to reporting the carrying out of this plague in verse 29, the killing of the firstborn humans and animals is mentioned whereas there is no mention of the destruction of the idols. The reason is that the Egyptians had been alerted to the dying of the firstborn during that night and they therefore found out about it during the night seeing they were checking if this disaster was actually happening. They did not find out about the destruction of their idols until the morning when they visited their temples. We find that something similar occurred after the Philistines had captured the Holy Ark (Samuel I 5,3). We read there: ”Early the next day, the people of Ashdod found Dagon lying face down on the ground in front of the Ark of the Lord.” In the following verse we are told: “after they had picked up Dagon and put him back in his place the next morning they again found him lying prone on the ground in front of the Ark of the Lord. The head and both hands of Dagon had been cut off, lying on the threshold. Only Dagon’s trunk was left intact.” This is when it dawned on the Philistines that the plague inflicted on them as well as on their deities had been caused by the G’d of heaven. This is what the prophet Jeremiah 10,11 had in mind when he said: “Thus shall you say to them: ‘Let the gods, who did not make heaven and earth, perish from the earth and from under the heaven.’”

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.

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)

And the blood shall be for you as a sign upon the houses where you are, and I will see the blood and I will have compassion on you, and there shall be no death among you to destroy, when I strike in the land of Egypt.

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). From this we may learn that they put the blood only inside their houses. 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). 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. 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).

Because of the blood which I see, I will pass over you, and there will be no plague among you — for this blood will be a sign for the Destroyer to see.

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. 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.]

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."

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, “as soon as I will see the blood, etc.” Even though the blood of the Paschal lamb was smeared on the doorposts inside their homes 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 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.

וראיתי את הדם ופסחתי עליכם, “when I see the blood I shall pass over you.” It was not the blood itself which would keep the plague away; nor was it the absence of the blood which would cause the plague to strike. He who had complete faith in the Lord and no longer feared Pharaoh and his decrees and had demonstrated this by publicly slaughtering an Egyptian deity and smearing its blood on his door posts and lintel had thereby demonstrated that he was a righteous individual and deserved to be spared. Mechilta Parshat 7, commenting on this verse, asks why the Torah should write that G‘d had “to see” the blood seeing that He sees everything even in the dark without having to pass over these houses. We have at least two verses in Scripture testifying to this, i.e. Daniel 2,22: “He knows all that goes on in the dark;” and Psalms 139,12: “darkness is not dark for You.” In view of this what news does the Torah tell us when it writes: “it will be when I see, etc.?” They answer that G’d’s memory of the blood of the binding of Yitzchak will be “triggered” by the sight. At that time (after Avraham had sacrificed the ram Genesis 22,14) he had called that site: “The eternal G’d will see.”

And this day shall be for you a remembrance, and you shall celebrate it as a festival before Hashem; throughout your generations you shall celebrate it as an everlasting ordinance.

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

"And this day shall be" — a memorial for all generations. "And you shall celebrate it" — this is the Passover festival. And [Scripture] says "a statute forever for your generations," but does not say "in all your dwellings," for this commandment is contingent upon the Land, as I will explain.

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.

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].

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.

Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; indeed, on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses, for whoever eats leavened bread — that person shall be cut off from Israel, from the first day until the seventh day.

שבעת ימים denotes a septaine (old French) of days. 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). 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; cf. Pesachim 5a). הנפש ההיא [FOR WHOSOEVER EATETH ANYTHING LEAVENED..] THAT SOUL [SHALL BE CUT OFF] — if ...

"Seven days." The meaning of "you shall eat matzot" is as a remembrance of their eating [unleavened bread] when they went out of Egypt; for [Scripture] did not command them to eat matzot except what was eaten with the Passover-offering before the middle of the night — but for seven days He commanded them to eat matzot as a remembrance of what happened to them when they left Egypt. For there it is written that there was no leavening, and had the Egyptians allowed them to tarry a short while they would have leavened their dough. During those seven days of their departure they ate matzot until Pharaoh drowned on the seventh day, for the cloud led them by day and by night and they did not delay long at their encampments. So it is written concerning the Passover: "seven days you shall eat matzot upon it, bread of affliction" (Deut. 16:3), which speaks of the Passover; thus "seven days you shall eat matzot" is an obligation according to the plain sense. The proof is: "in order that you remember the day of your going out" (ibid.). This is why it is written: "no leaven shall you eat, in all your dwellings you shall eat matzot" (v. 20) — obligatory in the Land of Israel and outside it. After Israel had a received tradition that they would begin to slaughter the Passover-offering at the time the sun inclines westward, and it is written: "you shall not slaughter the Passover-offering over leaven" (34:25), the Sages therefore derived [from the word akh, "only,"] that it is a partial restriction. Know that the completion of an action is not yet an action; the meaning of "God finished on the seventh day" (Gen. 2:2) is that when the seventh day entered, His work was already complete. Likewise: "on the first day you shall remove all leaven from your houses" (v. 15) — when the first day enters, all leaven has already been removed from the houses. Thus the first day begins at the evening of the fourteenth: as it is written, "from the first day until the seventh day" — the meaning is that these are seven complete days, from the evening of the fourteenth of the month (which is the end of the fourteenth day) until the evening of the twenty-first of the month. I will discuss this further.

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. 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. 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. 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 ...

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. אך ביום הראשון תשביתו, “but on the first of these seven days you shall put away all leaven”. 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 put away all leaven on the first day, mean that you have to complete your preparations for the festival before it begins on the evening after the 14th day of Nissan. As soon as the festival begins day dawned, all leaven had already been put away by now. 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.”

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.”

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.

And on the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day a holy convocation shall there be for you; no work at all shall be done on them, except that which is eaten by every person — that alone may be prepared for you.

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). לא יעשה בהם NO WORK SHALL BE DONE ON THEM, even by the agency of others (cf. Mekhilta). 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). 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).

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. 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: “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. [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: “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. 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? Now by the syllogism of kal vachomer, 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. 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 wor...

"And on the first day" — this is the day of the Exodus from Egypt; the seventh day is the day Pharaoh drowned, as I will explain. "All labor" — for all the festivals other than the Sabbath and Yom Kippur, it does not say "all labor" but [just] "labor." Only for Passover is it stated ["all labor"], with the stipulation that preparing food [for human consumption] is permitted; and throughout — whether for Passover, Shavuot, the Day of Remembrance, or the Festival of Sukkot — Scripture consistently used the abbreviated phrase "no labor shall you do." Yet in one place concerning Passover it said "all labor" after having first specified [the exception of food preparation].

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

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.]

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. 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.]

And you shall observe the unleavened bread, for on this very day I brought out your hosts from the land of Egypt; and you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an everlasting ordinance.

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

"And you shall guard" — He commanded here that the matzot be guarded from the time of the grain harvest. And it is written: "I will bring out your hosts" — yet they had not yet gone out, for this prophecy was at the beginning of the month. The meaning is that you shall say this to future generations.

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

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. 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.

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 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.

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

In Nisan, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening.

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 leavened 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).

"In the first" — he used an abbreviated expression, having already mentioned above: "it is the first for you" (v. 2), so the meaning is "in the first month." Similarly: "in the tenth, on the first of the month" (Gen. 8:5).

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.”

For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses, for whoever eats that which is leavened — that person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether a proselyte or a native of the land.

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). 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; cf. Beitzah 7b). 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).

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. 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. 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, [i.e., that which actually belongs to you, 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,” as is explained at the beginning of Tractate Pesachim. 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: “In your homes. Why is this said? Because it is stated, in all thy borders, 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 ...

"Leaven" — that which causes leavening, and it is the well-known substance. Scripture then says: "anyone who eats anything leavened" — anything that becomes fermented. Know that "from the first day until the seventh day" is not connected to what is adjacent to it, namely ve-nikhretah ("and that person shall be cut off"), but rather to "anyone who eats anything leavened," just as [the phrase] le-mlokh Shlomo al Yisrael (1 Kings 6:1) [is connected to the earlier clause]. Yefet said there is a particle that draws itself and another word backward, as in [the listing] odem, pitdah, ve-vareket (Exod. 25:17), meaning odem u-fitdah ve-vareket [the particle applies to all three]; and similarly "from the first day until the seventh day." [Scripture] already stated that any Israelite who eats leaven incurs karet; here it adds the ger, meaning the righteous proselyte.

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 verse ביום 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.

You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwelling places you shall eat unleavened bread.

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). 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). 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).

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].

"All." Scripture states the punishment first and the warning afterward. And "in all your dwellings you shall eat matzot" is not permissive, as one might think on the analogy of "six days you shall do labor" (35:2) — it is obligatory, "in order that you remember."

בכל מושבותיכם תאכלו מצות, “you are to eat unleavened 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.

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

And Moses called all the elders of Israel and said to them: Draw out and take for yourselves from the flock for your families, and slaughter the Passover offering.

משכו DRAW OUT — He who has sheep let him draw one out from his own, וקחו OR TAKE, and he who has no sheep let him purchase one in the market (Mekhilta). למשפחתיכם [A LAMB] ACCORDING TO YOUR FAMILIES — this corresponds to שה לבית אבות a lamb for the house of their fathers in verse 3.

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. 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] 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. It said, and take you, meaning “take the lambs according to your families,” every man a lamb, according to their fathers’ houses, and slaughter the Passover lamb at eventide, all in accordance with what has been explained above concerning this commandment. Now we read in the Mechilta: “Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel. This teaches us that he constituted them a court. And he said unto them. The word came from the mouth of Moses, saying it to all Israel. 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, 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,’ [which is a reference to the elders of the congregation, members of the Court]. 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, which was not explicitly mentioned above but in a general way, And they shall take of the blood, etc. It teaches us that every undefined “taking” prescribed in the Torah must be with “a bunch,” and that all “taking” of th...

"Moses called all the elders of Israel" — and they would relay the message to the congregation. "And take for yourselves from the flock" — on the tenth of the month, as Hashem had commanded him. The grammarian said that ve-shaḥatu ha-pesaḥ is in the intensive (piel) conjugation; but this is incorrect, for ve-shaḥatu oto kol qehal adat Yisrael (v. 6) is in the simple (qal) conjugation, with the shin voweled in qamatz as is the rule for a quiescent nun. Rather, ve-shaḥatu ha-pesaḥ is a command form in the qal, not the intensive, and nowhere in Scripture does this root appear in the intensive conjugation. The shin ought to have a ḥirik under it [as in the imperative], yet it takes a pataḥ because of the guttural letter that follows it — gutturals regularly trigger this change, as in baḥaru lakhem (Josh. 24:15) and many similar cases. Therefore the shin is voweled with a large pataḥ in the command form, yet both forms [indicative and imperative] come from the same conjugation.

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. 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.

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.! 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.

משכו וקחו לכם, “draw forth or purchase for yourselves.” A Midrash writes that “as a result of your drawing forth the lamb to perform My commandment, I (G’d) in turn will draw forth your enemies to the Sea of Reeds and drown them therein. The same merit will also result (eventually) in My drowning the army of Siserah in the river Kishon by drawing them forth to their destruction.” (Judges 4,7). An alternate approach: Seeing that the descent of your forefathers to Egypt was set in motion by משיכה, i.e. (Genesis 37,28) “they (the Midianites) drew forth and pulled up Joseph from the pit” and it has been said concerning them (Isaiah 5,18) “ah, those who haul sins with cords of falsehood,” the punishment when it comes was described by using the same verb, i.e. (Isaiah, Nechemyah 9,30) ותמשוך עליהם שנים רבות....ותתנם ביד עמי הארצות, “You dragged on within them (bore with them) for many years.....so You delivered them into the hands of the peoples of the land.” On the one hand, Israel has been called עם ממושך וממורט, “a people thrust forth and away” when they are sinful, (Isaiah 18,2) whereas when they return in penitence they are described as משכני אחריך נרוצה, ”draw me after You, let us run” (Song of Songs 1,4). We find the verb משך applied to the Jewish people also in Hoseah 11,4: בחבלי אדם אמשכם בעבותות אהבה, “I drew them with human ties, with cords of love.” למשפחותיכם, “according to your families.” This wording teaches that one is obligated to assemble one’s relatives around him in order to celebrate festivals together. Similarly, G’d has assured us that when the redemption will occur there will be a mutual drawing together of family members as the prophet (Jeremiah 30,25) has said: “at that time — declares the Lord — I will be G’d to all the clans of Israel, and they shall all be My people.”

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.

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

And you shall take a bundle of hyssop and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and apply it to the lintel and to the two doorposts from the blood that is in the basin; and none of you shall go out from the entrance of his house until morning.

אזוב HYSSOP — a kind of herb which has thin stalks. אגדת אזוב A BUNCH OF HYSSOP — three stalks are called a bunch (cf. Shabbat 109b; Sukkah 13a). אשר בסף means WHICH IS IN THE VESSEL, as in (2 Kings 12:14) “basins (ספות) of silver.” 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). 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) — 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”.

"And you shall take" — here he explains how they are to take from the blood and apply it to the lintel. The word agudat is like chavurah (a group/bundle), as in "they were as one band" (va-yiheyu le-agudah aḥat, 2 Sam. 2:25). Rabbi Merinus said that the alef is a prefix letter and the root is gadad; others said the alef is part of the root, as in "he shall wear [and bind] his ephod" (28:5). The Gaon [Saadia] explained the hyssop in Arabic as za'tar, and in the vernacular as origano [oregano]; it is a prized herb for seasoning. But this cannot be correct, for Scripture says regarding the hyssop "that grows out of the wall" (1 Kings 5:13), and I do not know what it is; though by way of reasoning it is not a sturdy plant, for it is contrasted with the cedar mentioned in that verse. Some say the Passover-offering was slaughtered at the threshold (saf) of the gate, and they dipped the hyssop in it and reached the doorposts, as in "he measured the threshold (saf) of the gate" (Ezek. 40:6), imot ha-sippim (Isa. 6:4). Others say the saf is a vessel upon which they slaughtered, as in mishkav ve-sippot (2 Sam. 17:25). I will explain "until morning" further below.

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). 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.”

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.

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.

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

And Hashem will be revealed to strike Egypt; and He will see the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, and Hashem will have compassion on the doorway, and will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses to strike.

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). 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”.

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. 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.

"And He will not permit the Destroyer" — He will not allow it, as in: "for this reason I did not allow you to touch her" (Gen. 20:6). The Destroyer is in Hashem's control, and allowing it is as if Hashem gives it permission.

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

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.

וראה את הדם על המשקוף ועל שתי המזוזות, and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two upright door-posts, etc.” Seeing that Israel was the vehicle by means of which G’d’s greatness was demonstrated at the time of the Exodus, they were commanded to perform a number of very visible acts in connection with this commandment. All the acts in question were designed to discredit the wicked king and the faulty religious orientation of the Egyptians. The public nature of this commandment was to instill in the Egyptians a belief in G’d when they would see how their deity had been debased. The Israelites were ordered to slaughter (publicly) the lamb, (Egyptian deity) to roast it openly on the fire (not conceal it in a pot). Even passers-by would not only observe the preparation of this meat but if they were too far away to see it they would smell its fragrance. The lamb’s blood was to be displayed openly on the door of every Jewish dwelling. This was a warning that the attribute of Justice had been extended fully against the Egyptians. This has been spelled out in Amos 9,1: “strike the capitals so that the thresholds quake and make an end of the first of them all.” This is the plain meaning of our verse. A Kabbalistic approach to our verse: This verse comprises an allusion to the letters in the Holy Name of G’d and it has been mentioned earlier in reverse order (the order in which one builds) i.e. “the two upright doorposts and the lintel” (verse 7). Here the final stage of a building, the roof, or in this instance the lintel, has been mentioned first. This affords you an opportunity to understand the mystical dimension of Proverbs 8,34: “happy is the man who listens to Me; who comes to My gates early daily; waiting at the doorposts of My gates.” It also affords us an opportunity to understand what Rav Chisda said in Berachot 8 that a person should make a point of entering through two doors to the Synagogue. The Talmud finds it difficult to accept this at face value and concludes that what Rav Chisda meant was that one should step sufficiently far inside the Synagogue before commencing one’s prayer so that one could have walked through at least two doors. If one is framed between two doors and the two doors in their appearance resemble the letters in the name of G’d then G’d views Himself as it were and will not harm the individual who by his presence helps make up His name. The word אות, or לאות in verse 23 must be understood as “letter,” or “letters.” The mystical meaning both here and in the statement of Rav Chisda is that if one surrounds oneself with the appropriate symbols portraying G’d’s Holy Name this acts as protection against the attribute of Justice [the lintel is considered as a ו and the two upright posts as two letters ה , respectively]. ופסח ה' על הפתח, “and G’d will skip that entrance” ולא יתן למשחית לבא and will not allow the destroyer to enter through it, seeing he has sealed it with His seal. According to the aforesaid there were four altars corresponding to the four letters in the tetragrammaton. This corresponds to what we have been taught in Mechilta Pisscha section 6 that our forefathers in Egypt had 4 altars. They were: the lintel, the two upright posts and the threshold. The threshold was considered a “small and round vessel.” The four cups of wine we drink at the Seder celebration symbolise these four altars. The first cup, the one drunk during kiddush symbolised the letter י which is holy. The second cup is drunk as a memento of the haggadah, the story of all the miracles, and symbolises the letter ה from which all the miracles emanated. The third cup is drunk in connection with grace corresponding to the letter ו which is reminiscent of השמים, heaven, in the verse ואתה תשמע השמים, “and You are listening in heaven” (Kings I 8,32). This is the source of all our food. as G’d said in Exodus 16,4: “here I will make bread rain down for you from heaven.” The fourth cup over which we recite the verse שפוך חמתך אל הגויים, “pour out Your wrath against the nations which refuse to acknowledge you, etc.,” symbolises the last letter ה in the tetragrammaton which is a clear reference to the attribute of Justice. It is also possible to simply view blood as something symbolising either life or death in our verse. It spelled death for our enemies, i.e. the Egyptian firstborn, and life, i.e. survival for the Israelites. We know from Leviticus 17,11 that blood is the life-blood of man and beast. Seeing that for the Egyptians it had become a symbol of death, i.e. that they would be deprived of that vital blood, the Israelites had to symbolise that in their houses blood would be a symbol of life rather than death. The Torah therefore said that where the symbol of such blood was visible the angel of death here called המשחית, “the destroyer,” would have no access. We must not understand the משחית here in the usual sense, seeing that G’d personally performed the killing of the Egyptian firstborn as we explained at length. Moreover, the Torah wrote ופסח ה', that G’d personally would “pass over” the houses of the Jewish people displaying the blood of the Passover lamb. At that hour, G’d would not permit the angel of death to enter the פתח, entrance of any Jewish home even to carry out its normal duties unrelated to the firstborn. The matter can be compared to Samuel II 24,16 where we are told that G’d stayed the hand of the angel of death (while He made a pestilence rage) saying to him: “enough! Stay your hand.” The message of our verse is that although G’d personally carried out the slaying of the firstborn the angel of death was in attendance together with its variegated powers. All of its powers are derived from the attribute of Justice. It is similar to a king moving from one place to another taking vengeance of his enemies. The king does not travel unattended but has his entourage which is schooled in this task with him. This entourage was not allowed to do anything on its own on that fateful night even to people who had previously been slated to be their victims on that night. G’d personally denied them their usual function on that night. On that night G’d wanted to carry out His vengeance on all the Egyptian firstborn personally. This is why the angel of death was not allowed to kill anyone else amongst the Egyptians on that night either. On the other hand, no decree had been issued to the angel of death not to kill any Jew, seeing that G’d was not going to do it and it would not have interfered with G’d’s plans. The Jewish firstborn therefore were not in danger from G’d but they were in danger from the angel of death. Had these Jews not displayed the sign of the blood they could have fallen victim to destructive forces activated by the angel of death. It was therefore necessary that they display the blood not because G’d needed to see it but so that the angel of death who had not received a blanket prohibition not to be active on that night would see it and respect it. This is the meaning of the words אל בתיכם, “into your houses.”

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.

And you shall observe this word as an ordinance for you and for your children forever.

AND YE SHALL OBSERVE THIS THING. This refers to the Passover-offering itself, concerning which He had said above, and slaughter the Passover lamb, 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. Similarly, the expression, and ye shall keep this service, 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.

"And you shall observe" — many have thought that placing blood on the lintel and the two doorposts is obligatory for all generations, because "this matter" is adjacent to the taking of the hyssop and dipping it, and further because it is written afterward: "who passed over the houses of the children of Israel" (v. 27). This would be reasonable on logical grounds were it not for the definitive received tradition. The correct interpretation is that "this matter" refers back to ve-shaḥatu ha-pesaḥ ("they shall slaughter the Passover-offering"), and the meaning of the children's questioning arises from their seeing the entire family gathered as one group, eating a whole lamb — its head with its legs and its innards — with no bone of it broken, and no alien, resident alien, uncircumcised person, or hired servant eating from it. Such is not the practice at other festivals.

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.

And it shall be, when you enter the land that Hashem will give you as He has spoken, you shall observe this service.

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), 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 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).

"And it shall be" — here he explains that the slaughtering of the Passover-offering is contingent upon [being in] the Land. And do not be troubled by the Passover at Mount Sinai, for that was a supernal commandment; they did not make another Passover-offering in the desert because at Sinai they were in a settled place and could find matzot; but while they were in a land through which no man had passed, they had nothing but the manna alone.

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)? 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.

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.

And it shall be, when your children say to you: What is this service to you?

"And it shall come to pass [when your children say to you:] 'What is this service to you?'" — the change [in practice] that I have just noted [namely, that the blood-rite applies only to Egypt, not future generations].

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 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 because this marks the conclusion of the harvest of summer fruits. But 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;”

“And it shall be when your children say to you, ‘What is this service to you?’” In the Passover Haggadah, it is concluded that this verse refers to the wicked son who mockingly says “What is this service?” similar to the phrase “What is man?” [expressing disdain]. The Haggadah instructs: “You too should blunt his teeth and say to him: It is because of this that the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt (Exodus 13:8) — for me and not for him; had he been there, he would not have been redeemed.” People raise a difficulty with this: why doesn’t the Haggadah cite the response that appears right next to it in the Torah (verse 27): You shall say, “It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord, etc.”? Instead, it takes a response from a verse that is not adjacent to it in the Torah. Furthermore, this verse (Exodus 13:8) has already been interpreted as referring to the son who does not know how to ask, and in that case, it does not make the inference, “for me and not for him.” How can one verse yield two contradictory interpretations? Abarbanel raised these difficulties in his book Zevach Pesach but offered explanations that are forced and unconvincing. Now, open your eyes and see that I will explain the entire account of the four sons mentioned in the Torah in a way that resolves all the doubts and questions raised by Abarbanel. I have decided to resolve the aforementioned difficulties regarding the response to the wicked son in three different ways. The first approach is, that the verse and you shall say, “It is a Passover sacrifice” etc. is not connected at all to the preceding verse, and it stands as an independent statement. The evidence for this is that it should have said and you shall say to them, “It is a Passover sacrifice”, as mentioned in the responses to all the sons [in other passages]: and you shall tell your son, and you shall say to him. Why did it change here and write and you shall say, “It is a Passover sacrifice” without specifying to whom it should be said? Furthermore, it is difficult [to understand] why everywhere regarding Passover it says and you shall perform the service (Exodus 13:5), but here it says and you shall keep the service. Another difficulty is that everywhere else it refers to the children in singular form, as it says later (Exodus 13:8) and you shall tell your son, and regarding the simple son it says (Exodus 13:14) and it shall be when your son asks you, saying “What is this?” And regarding the wise son it says in Parashat Va’etchanan (Deuteronomy 6:20) When your son asks you tomorrow, saying “What is this?” But here it says and it shall be when your children say to you in plural form. But certainly here it is speaking about a time when many rebellious children will rise up and think to destroy this cornerstone of divine service and to stop the people from the work of serving God. And because of those who would destroy, the service needs extra protection. And about that rebellious generation, it says you shall keep this service — protect it so that it will not be destroyed. And afterward it explains at what time the service needs protection, about this it says And it shall be when your children say to you, “What is this service to you?” Meaning, the need for this protection will be at that time when your children, destructive children, will arise and say mockingly, “What is this service to you?” For with mocking language they will speak to these people in order to stop them from the work of serving God. And about that time it says you shall keep the service, for then it needs extra protection to stand against the mockers. Therefore it specifies your children in the plural form, because on account of some individual mocker, it would not need so much protection, as his opinion would be nullified by everyone else. And according to this, the first verse is not connected to the verse that follows it. And what is said afterward, And you shall say, “It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord” is a separate matter, for Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said that anyone who does not mention these three things on Passover has not fulfilled his obligation, and they are: the Passover sacrifice, matzah, and bitter herbs. And from where did Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel learn that in addition to the practical fulfillment of these commandments, one is obligated to verbally discuss their significance? Certainly, he learned this from the verse, And you shall say, “It is a Passover sacrifice, etc.”, which is a command about verbal declaration in addition to the action itself. However, it has not yet been mentioned that there is an obligation to verbally discuss the matters of matzah and bitter herbs, for in this verse only the Passover sacrifice is mentioned. Therefore, it is subsequently stated, And you shall tell your son on that day, saying, “Because of this, the Lord acted for me when I came out of Egypt.” The author of the Haggadah interprets because of this to mean “I have said this only at the time when matzah and bitter herbs are placed before you.” This raises a difficulty: why doesn’t he also mention the Passover sacrifice, saying “at the time when the Passover sacrifice, matzah, and bitter herbs are placed before you”? Certainly, it is because the obligation of verbal declaration regarding the Passover sacrifice has already been mentioned in the verse And you shall say, “It is a Passover sacrifice”, but regarding matzah and bitter herbs, it has not yet been mentioned, since one is obligated to discuss them verbally even if no one asks about them. Therefore, the verse And you shall tell your son speaks specifically about matzah and bitter herbs, which one is obligated to discuss verbally before the members of one’s household even if they do not ask anything about them. According to this, the Torah has not yet mentioned any response to the wicked evil one who says with mocking lips “What is this service to you?” and the opinion of the author of the Haggadah is that the verse And you shall tell your son is a response to the wicked son and to the son who does not know how to ask. For it is difficult regarding the words of the author of the Haggadah who interpreted this verse about one who does not know how to ask — how does he know to say that the son is silent because he does not know how to ask? Perhaps he is silent because he is completely wicked and does not even want to speak about this commandment because it is so despised in his eyes. And so Abarbanel also raised this difficulty but did not resolve anything, because the response stated in the Torah is not evidence at all about the son’s thoughts, for who knows his thoughts, whether they are straightforward or crooked (Sanhedrin 26). And the Torah has no ability to tell us such a prophecy, to say that before the Holy One, blessed be He, his thoughts are revealed, for only before Him, blessed be He, are they revealed. Nevertheless, we do not know, and is it known before us? And is it so definitive that every silent person is silent because he does not know how to ask? Therefore, my heart tells me that this is not the correct approach, rather, here is the explanation of the matter: The interpretation of for me and not “for him” is not clear from the language of for me and the interpretation depends on the mindset of the son sitting before him. For if this silent son is wicked, and the service is considered worthless in his eyes, then it is properly interpreted as for me and not “for him,” because one says to him that it is because of this service that God did great and awesome things for me when I left Egypt. This implies that had I not engaged in this service, I would not yet have been redeemed. And likewise, this wicked son, had he been there, would certainly not have wanted to perform this service, and consequently would not have been redeemed. But if this silent son simply does not know how to ask and the service is not despised by him, then who can say that had he been there, he would not have performed this service? Most likely, had he been there, he too would have performed this service and undoubtedly would have been redeemed as well. In this case, the emphasis on for me and not “for him” would not apply to him, because the language of for me itself is not particularly significant, as the father needed to say for me to his son, since the son was not part of that generation, and how could he say “God did for us”? Rather, the interpretation comes from the son’s mindset — whether he believes there is substance in this service or not. If he does not believe in it, then certainly had he been there, he would not have engaged in it, and consequently would not have been redeemed, for it was through this service that God brought about my exodus from Egypt and other great things. And whoever would not engage in it would not be redeemed. But if the son believes in the service, though he lacks the knowledge to ask, certainly had he been there, he too would have engaged in this service and would also have been redeemed. The Torah says: if it happens that your son sits before you and puts his hand to his mouth without asking you anything, and you are uncertain whether he is silent because he does not know how to ask or because he is wicked, then to resolve this dilemma, go and say to him, Because of this, God did for me when I came out of Egypt. Then, either way, you fulfill your obligation. For if he is wicked at heart, you have blunted his teeth by saying God did for me, because since he does not acknowledge the service, it will be understood as for me and not “for him.” And if he is not wicked but simply does not know how to ask, then tell him this verse, and it will not be understood as for me and not “for him,” because had he been there, he certainly would have engaged in this service as well. And for this reason, it changed here to say “ve-higadta [and you shall tell] to your son.” And it does not say “ve-amarta [and you shall say]” or “ve-dibarta [and you shall speak],” but rather because the language of “hagadah [telling]” is used for a matter and its opposite. It serves for language as harsh as sinews, as Rashi explained on the verse ve-taged [and you shall tell] the children of Israel (Exodus 19:3). Even though he explained it this way because of the yud [letter in the word], nevertheless even without the yud, its meaning is words as harsh as sinews. And it also serves as soft language, as our Sages said in the chapter “Ein Dorshin” (Chagigah 14a): “Aggadah [homiletics] that draws a person’s heart like water.” And so it appears in the chapter of Rabbi Akiva (Shabbat 87a), where they interpreted the verse va-yaged [and Moses told] (Exodus 19:9) to have two possible meanings. Therefore, the language of ve-higadta to your son is used here because if he does not know how to ask, then you should draw his heart to the service of the Blessed God, as it is written mishchu u-kechu [draw and take] for yourselves sheep, meaning, draw your children’s hearts to the service of God. And likewise, “aggadah” is a language of drawing, as mentioned, through gentle words. But if he is wicked at heart, then with these words you should feed him words as harsh as sinews, which blunt a person’s teeth, because he will understand from your words “for me and not for him.” From here, the author of the Haggadah learned to say “and you too shall blunt his teeth,” etc. And he learned the response to the wicked son from the verse ve-higadta to your son — for if the Torah told us to speak thus to the silent son, who may possibly be wicked, how much more so should you respond this way to the wicked son who says with a full mouth, mockingly, What is this service to you? This explanation is precious [yakar], and behold, I have space to explain this further in various ways, and the reader will choose from them what is best in his eyes. The second approach is, to satisfy the view of most Torah commentators who believe that the verse And you shall say, “It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord” is connected to the preceding verse, and it is the answer to the wicked son and the rebellious ones who seek to destroy the cornerstone of divine service in the manner explained above. We can say that the intention of the Haggadah is to tell you to respond to the wicked son with the answer that is right beside it, which is the verse And you shall say, “It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord. For all that is implied from the verse Because of this the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt is also implied from this verse. The wicked one says, What is this service to you — to you and not to him, because he believes there is no substance to this service and it is only for you, for your pleasure, since you are the ones eating and drinking. And you shall say to him, It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord and not to us. The proof of this is that He passed over the houses of the children of Israel when He struck the Egyptians and saved our homes. How can you say there is no substance to it when everyone who engaged in this service was saved from the plague, while the Egyptians who did not engage in this service were struck, and our homes were saved because of this service? From this verse, the precise inference of ”for me and not for him“ is derived, because the wicked son admits that had he been there, he would not have performed this service, and therefore certainly would not have been redeemed but would have been struck along with the Egyptians who were not engaged in this service and were struck. And what is written, And say to him, ”Because of this the Lord did for me“, does not mean that one should recite to him the verse said to the one who does not know how to ask. Rather, the intention is to respond to him like it, with the verse And you shall say, ”It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord.“ And the reason the verse is not quoted exactly is because it adds, And you too shall blunt his teeth, but it has not yet explained what blunts his teeth. Therefore, it provides an interpretation of the verse And you shall say, ”It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord,“ and says that from this verse it is understood that because of this Passover, the Lord acted for me when I came out of Egypt and saved us from the plague. From this, the wicked son will understand for me and not for him, because had he been there, he certainly would not have performed the service, and then he would not have been redeemed but would have been struck with the Egyptians, and with this you will blunt his teeth. And regarding what is said with the language of ‘af’ [also], saying “and you also blunt his teeth.” Because our Sages said [Seder Olam] that when Israel tied the lamb to the legs of the bed, the Egyptians’ teeth were blunted because the Egyptians also mocked this commandment, as they thought everything depended on the constellation of Aries [a lamb]. This is the opinion of this wicked person, and as soon as this wicked person sees Israel engaged in this commandment, his teeth become blunted on their own, as it is written: The wicked shall see it and be vexed; he shall gnash his teeth and melt away (Psalms 112:10). And in addition to his teeth already being blunted on their own, you should also further blunt his teeth and tell him the explanation of the verse And you shall say, “It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord” from which it can be understood Because of this the Lord did for me and not for him, etc. And if one would bring him the verse as it is, perhaps the wicked person would not understand from it this explanation that blunts his teeth. But the verse stated nearby, And you shall tell your son on that day, saying, “Because of this the Lord did for me” — even though there it explicitly says for me, nevertheless one cannot infer from it “for me and not for him” because the language for me is not precise at all, for how could the father say to the son “the Lord did for us” when the son was not there at the time of the exodus from Egypt? Therefore, the father had to say for me. Also, one cannot infer “for me and not for him” because if he had been there, he would not have performed this service — for who can tell us that he wouldn’t have performed the service? Presumably, he too would have performed it and would have been redeemed with all his Israelite brothers. But in the verse And you shall say, “It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord,” it is well understood that the interpretation of the scripture is “for me and not for him,” because there it explicitly explains that those who engaged in the service were saved from the plague, while the Egyptians who did not engage in it were struck. And so this wicked person who speaks with mocking lips, What is this service to you? and not to him, and excludes himself from the community — certainly if he had been there, he would not have performed this service, and then he would necessarily not have been redeemed but would have been struck with the Egyptians. And this is a correct and precious inference. The third approach is, to reconcile the views of Torah commentators and Aggadah who believe that the Haggadah author’s intention is to respond to the wicked son with the verse Because of this the Lord did for me, which is [typically] applied to the son who does not know how to ask. According to the Haggadah author, the Torah provides two responses to the wicked son: The first response is stated directly next to his question in the verse And you shall say: It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord. The second response is alluded to in the verse And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: Because of this the Lord did for me, etc. His view says that the verse And you shall tell your son serves as a response both to the wicked son and to the son who does not know how to ask. His evidence comes from the fact that the Torah doesn’t use the expressions “and you shall say” [ve’amarta] or “and you shall speak” [vedibarta], because “saying” [amirah] implies gentleness while “speaking” [dibur] implies harshness. Instead, the term “telling” [hagadah] is intermediate, encompassing both harsh words that set one’s teeth on edge like sinews, and soft words that draw a person’s heart, as explained in the first approach above. This hints that Scripture wants the father to recite this verse to two types of sons: to the son who doesn’t know how to ask, to tell him and draw his heart to divine service, as it says Draw out and take… and to say to him Because of this the Lord did for me, etc. We have already stated above that for the son who doesn’t know how to ask, there is no particular inference from the word for me to imply “for me but not for him.” However, to the rebellious son, you should tell harsh words like sinews, and by feeding him these harsh words, you shall blunt his teeth and also say to him this verse Because of this the Lord did for me. Here the inference is properly placed — “for me and not for him” — because had he been there, he would not have performed this service, and then certainly would not have been redeemed, for even for me the Lord did nothing except because of this. If this verse had been written only for the son who doesn’t know how to ask, it should have said “and you shall say” [ve’amarta], which implies gentleness. And if it had been written only for the wicked son, it should have said “and you shall speak” [vedibarta], which implies harshness. Furthermore, this verse is not connected to the mockery and contempt of the wicked son’s words, but rather it says and you shall tell [vehigadta], which implies both meanings as stated. And the Torah’s approach is to first test the wicked person if it is possible to draw him to the service of God with gentle words. This is the answer provided alongside: You shall say, “It is a Passover sacrifice to God”. The word “you shall say” implies a gentle speech, because in this verse there’s no implication of “for me” or “for him” since the word “for me” is not explicitly written in this verse. But if he hardens his neck and doesn’t listen to the voice of charmers, then you shall tell your son — feeding him harsh words like sinews, to blunt his teeth with them, and say to him: Because of this God did for me — for me and not for him. And this is what it means: Draw and take — draw is a term of telling, that you should initially draw Israel to the Passover service with gentle words, and if they do not listen, then take — taking with hands by force. And harsh words are similar to actual physical coercion, which is “taking.” And regarding what the author of the Haggadah did not mention, the response stated beside it And you shall say: It is a Passover sacrifice, it could be that he hinted to it when he said “and you shall also blunt his teeth.” What is the meaning of the word “also” [af]? Rather, it means that “I don’t need to tell you to respond with the answer written beside it, since it’s obvious that you will certainly give him that answer. But ‘also’ means a second response dealing with the blunting of the wicked son’s teeth — that response too you should give him if he is not corrected by the first response.” Thus, with the word “af” [also], it hinted at the response written beside it in the manner of “not only this, but also that.” For this reason, the Torah wrote two responses for the wicked son, one gentle and one harsh. And the author of the Haggadah said, “Do not be intimidated by the wicked one” — beyond the first gentle response, give him also this second response to blunt his teeth. And don’t be surprised that one verse can be interpreted in two contradictory ways, because we have already said that the careful inference does not come from the word li [for me], and the main distinction depends on that “between one who serves God and one who does not serve Him.” Therefore, for the wicked one who is evil and does not serve Him, the precise understanding is “for me and not for him,” but for the son who does not know how to ask, had he been there, he would have served God, so the inference of for me and not for him“ does not apply to him, and had he been there, he too would have been redeemed.

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

You shall say: It is a Passover sacrifice of compassion before Hashem, who had compassion on the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and our houses He spared. And the people bowed down and prostrated themselves.

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).

"You shall say: it is a Passover-offering." We find: pasoḥ ve-himlit ("passing over and delivering," Isa. 31:5), and the meaning is like compassion (ḥemlah). Because Hashem had compassion on Israel's firstborn on account of the blood of the lamb, the lamb is called pesaḥ — as in "they shall slaughter the Passover-offering" (v. 21). The Gaon said that the word derives from [the root of] pisseaḥ (one who limps), for a lame man leans upon his sound leg; and so the Destroyer acted — it destroyed the firstborn of the Egyptian households and "limped past" (passed over) the house of its Hebrew neighbor without destroying it. Similarly: "how long do you limp (posḥim) [between two opinions]?" (1 Kings 18:21).

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.

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; a requirement that does not apply to the meat of any other sacrifice. The answer of the father is that this was a reminder of the haste in which all this had to be done, and roasting is the quickest way to make raw meat edible. 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.

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.

אשר פסח, “who skipped over.”

And the children of Israel went and did as Hashem had commanded Moses and Aaron; so they did.

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). וילכו ויעשו THEY WENT AND DID — Scripture enumerates their going also, to give them a reward for going and a reward for doing (Mekhilta). 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).

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. 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. 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: “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? 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.” 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.

"And the children of Israel went and did" — they took a lamb on the tenth of the month as Hashem had commanded Moses and Aaron in the statute of the Passover; so they did.

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. 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/

And it came to pass at midnight that Hashem struck every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who was destined to sit upon the throne of his kingdom, to the firstborn of the captive who was in the house of prisoners, and every firstborn of the beasts.

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

"And it was at midnight" — the second [midnight]. Yefet said that the captives who grind at the millstones by day in the prison are brought into the pit at night, with the millstones placed over the mouth of the pit — this is what is meant by "behind the millstones," which is thus equivalent to [being] in the prison.

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.

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. 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. מבכור פרעה, “commencing with the firstborn son of Pharaoh,” (the highest ranking firstborn). The Torah hints that Pharaoh himself was also a firstborn. He was kept alive so that “he could declare G-d’s name throughout the world” (Exodus 9.16). If he was not killed on this night 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) 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.

וה' הכה כל בכור בארץ מצרים, “and G’d slew every firstborn in the land of Egypt, etc.” G’d carried out His retribution on the Egyptians according to the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, tit for tat, the punishment being fitted to the crime committed. This is why the 10 plagues were summed up in the abbreviated form of דצ'ך עד'ש באח'ב. The Egyptians’ principal source of faith was the dependability of the river Nile as their water supply, as the lifeline. It irrigated all their fields and they had made the Israelites slave in order to draw the water from the river. G’d therefore turned the river into blood. Seeing that the Egyptians used to awaken their Jewish slaves in the middle of the night and impose most onerous duties on them, the river was told to produce frogs in swarms which would invade the Egyptian houses and cause misery and revulsion for the Egyptians. The frogs even invaded the entrails of the Egyptians causing them distress (Shemot Rabbah 10,6). Seeing that the Egyptians had prevented the Israelites from bathing and washing themselves, the third plague, כנים, lice, was meant to demonstrate to the Egyptians what it means to be denied water to wash yourself and for one’s body to be infested with lice and other insects The Egyptians would demand from their Jewish slaves to go out into the forest and hunt wild animals for them, a dangerous undertaking. They experienced what it means to be surrounded by wild animals who do not respect civilization when G’d let loose the fourth plague, the invasion of their cities by wild beasts. The Egyptians had forced the Israelites to look after their livestock. G’d therefore afflicted the livestock with pestilence so that they would realize they had had no right to force the Israelites to perform such duties. The Egyptians had made the Israelites carry hot water for them to their bath houses. In retaliation, G’d made their skin break out in boils to remind them that they had not had the right to impose these kinds of duties on the Israelites. In retaliation for the Egyptians stoning Israelites, G’d brought on the plague of hailstones. In retribution for the Egyptians having forced the Israelites to work their vineyards, G’d made the locust ruin the vineyards. Seeing the Egyptians frequently put innocent Israelites in dark prisons G’d brought on the plague of darkness. Seeing they entertained plans of killing the Israelites who have been described as G’d’s firstborn (4,22), G’d punished them by killing their firstborn instead. [The various accusations leveled against the Egyptians by our author are all supported by Midrashim. Ed.] Tanchuma Bo 4 writes: “praised be the Lord, the King of Kings, who brought all these plagues on Pharaoh and his army in a manner similar to human kings when they go to war. Kings first try to deny their opponents their water supply. G’d similarly commenced His judgments by denying Pharaoh and his people the use of their source of water. Many Egyptians started dying from thirst during those seven days. This is the true meaning of (Exodus 7,24) “for they were unable to drink from the waters of the river.” Kings usually follow up by creating deafening noises to frighten their opponents as described in Nachum 3,2: “galloping steed and bounding chariot”. These sounds frighten those who are exposed to them. G’d did this when He orchestrated the plague of frogs which were very vociferous whistling, etc. Next a king usually employs archers who shoot their arrows at the enemy. G’d used the lice to have a similar effect on the Egyptians bitten by them.” The Midrash continues to describe how the various plagues corresponded to what occurs in warfare between armies on earth. All the plagues G’d brought upon the Egyptians in Egypt He will bring upon the Edomites at the time the final redemption is at hand. We base this on Isaiah 23,5: “When the Egyptians heard it they quailed as when they heard about Tyre.” Every time the word צור is spelled defectively in Scripture such as here (צר) it is a reference to the kingdom of Edom and not to Tyre. There was blood in Egypt; there will be blood when G’d smites Edom (Yoel 3,3). [The author continues quoting the Tanchuma on this subject. Ed.]

בחצי הלילה, while they were eating their Passover offering. היושב על כסאו, who would have sat on his throne if he had lived.

And Pharaoh arose that night, he and all his servants and all Egypt, and there was a great outcry in Egypt, for there was not a house in which there was no dead person.

ויקם פרעה AND PHARAOH AROSE from his bed, לילה AT NIGHT and not, as is the way of kings, at three hours in the day (9 o’clock in the morning) (Mekhilta; cf. Berakhot 9b). 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). 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).

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. 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. The firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne 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. 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, 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, for such an expression, [i.e., the first-fruits of his strength], is said only of a male.

"And he arose" — he himself personally, as in "the Levite, he himself" (Num. 18:23), meaning personally. "For there was no house" — Scripture speaks according to the majority [of cases].

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.

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). Rabbi Natan taught 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. (See Yalkut Shimoni Sh’mot Remez 208.5)

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.]

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.

And he called to Moses and to Aaron at night, and said: Arise, go out from among my people — both you and the children of Israel — and go, worship before Hashem, as you have said.

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

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. 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. 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. The verse stating, The Eternal thy G-d brought thee forth out of Egypt by night [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: “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? [How then does Scripture say that we were brought forth out of Egypt by night?] 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: “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, 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.”And some scholars say 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. Thus they were forbidden to go out of their homes at all at night. And similarly the Rabbis have said in the Mechilta: “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. 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 explained 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,” becau...

"And he called." By way of reasoning: Moses and Aaron were not in Rameses with Israel on the night of the fifteenth, but in Egypt, which was the seat of the royal palace where Pharaoh was. They went out of their doorway at Hashem's command at midnight, and Pharaoh granted them permission for Israel to go serve Hashem. Then Moses went with Pharaoh's servants to Rameses to bring Israel out. It is known today that between ancient Egypt [Cairo], where the storehouses of Joseph are still known to this day, and Rameses, is six parasangs. They thus began to go forth in the morning — meaning at the rising of the dawn column, when the sun's light first appears in the clouds. Between the beginning of that moment and sunrise is one and a third hours. We therefore have a "morning" while it is still quite dark, as in: "and she lay at his feet until the morning, and she arose before one person could recognize another" (Ruth 3:14) — and there it is written "before one person could recognize another." Some Israelites who were close to Egypt departed at the start of the dawn column, when it was still night according to the Torah's reckoning until sunrise; others, who were farther away, departed during that same day, for the assembly was vast and the extent of Rameses alone exceeded eight parasangs from beginning to end. This is why it is written: "Hashem your God brought you out of Egypt by night" (Deut. 16:1), and elsewhere: "today you are going out" (13:4), and again: "the children of Israel went out with a high hand" (Num. 33:3), while it is written there: "and the Egyptians were burying" (Num. 33:4) — they bury during the day. I have already explained this. "Also you" (gam attem) — "as you have spoken" (ki'dvarkhem): that you shall go a three days' journey, and also as you said — "our livestock shall also go with us" (10:26).

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. 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. 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. 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 bee...

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.

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. 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.]

Take your flocks and your herds as you have spoken, and go, and pray also for me.

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. 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).

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, 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: “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.

The meaning of "bless me also" — that they should bless him and pray on his behalf. The meaning of "also" (gam) is that he gave them animals for sacrifice, as Moses had requested of him.

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.

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 ministers’ 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 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.

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

And Egypt pressed hard upon the people to hasten to send them out from the land, for they said: We are all dying.

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).

"And it was strong" — [the verb is] in the feminine because the land of Egypt encompasses all [its inhabitants]. The meaning of "we are all dead" — I explained this at the word veyifga'enu (5:3).

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. Ed.]. 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.

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.

And the people carried their dough before it had become leavened, their kneading bowls bound up in their garments upon their shoulders.

טרם יחמץ BEFORE IT WAS LEAVENED — The Egyptians would not allow them to stay long enough for the dough to become leavened. משארתם (from the root שאר “to be left over”) denotes the leavings (what was left) of the unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Mekhilta). 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).

"Their kneading-troughs" (mis'arotam): wooden vessels, as in "your basket and your kneading-bowl (mish'artekhah)" (Deut. 28:5), for their donkeys were loaded with garments that they borrowed from the Egyptians.

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. 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.

טרם יחמץ, “before it could become leavened.” Something similar will occur in the future. This is what Hoseah 7,4 meant when he said: “who desists from the kneading of the dough to its leavening.” משארותם, their kneading bowls.” This is a reference to the leftovers of the previous night’s meal of unleaveneed bread and bitter herbs.(Rashi). Others say it refers to the leftovers of the passover lamb. The Torah had instructed: “do not leave over from it until the morning.” 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.

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?

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

And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses, and they asked of the Egyptians vessels of silver and vessels of gold and garments.

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…” 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) (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).

"And the children of Israel" — each one asked according to his station, for in the making of the Tabernacle the princes alone brought the precious stones and the spices and the oil.

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.

And Hashem granted the people favor in the eyes of Egypt, and they lent to them, and they emptied out Egypt.

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

"And they despoiled" (va-yenatzelu). We find the root of hatzalah (rescue/despoiling) only in the causative conjugation (hif'il) or the intensive (pi'el), not in the simple (qal); and both are transitive verbs, for there is no difference in meaning between va-yenatzelu and va-yatzel Elohim ("and God took away," Gen. 31:9), except that with the causative the object [of what is taken] is stated, which is not so with the intensive.

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.]

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.

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 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.

And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot — the men, aside from the children.

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 and Rashi on Exodus 19:4). הגברים ADULT MALES — from twenty years old and upwards (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 3:6).

"And they journeyed" (va-yis'u). The samekh should have taken a dagesh when the nun was absorbed, as in va-yigshu (Gen. 19:9) and va-yitenu (Gen. 35:4); perhaps it came without the dagesh in order to ease the pronunciation. "From Rameses" — with a pataḥ under the resh and a sheva under the ayin; it is the name of a district, not a city. "To Sukkot" — toward Sukkot. [Scripture] counts the men, and there is no need to count the women — for they [the women] are like them [the men], or more. "Beside the young children" (le-vad mi-taf): meaning those under twenty years of age.

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 and from there they left as free people. [before the onset of the plagues when they had taken a “rest.” Ed] סכותה “toward Sukkot”, Rabbi Nechemyah said that the suffix ה in this word substitutes for the missing prefix ל.

כשש מאות אלף רגלי הגברים, “approximately six hundred thousand men on foot.” The wording indicates that there were not quite 600,000 such men seeing the Torah does not give a precise count of how many there were or by how many the number was short of 600,000. It would appear that they were only one man short of that number. The Torah did not want to spell out the number 600,000 when in fact they were short by one. I have found this explanation in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 39. According to the wording there “when G’d realized that they were short by only a single man to make up the required number, He took the place of the missing man thus completing the required quorum. In this manner G’d fulfilled what He said to Yaakov in Genesis 46,4 “I am also going to bring you up out of there.”

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).

And many foreigners also went up with them, and flocks and cattle — very much livestock.

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

"And also a mixed multitude" (erev rav) — from among the Egyptians who mingled with them; these are the asafsuf (rabble) who gathered unto them.

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.”

and a multitude of strangers, two hundred and forty myriads, went up with them, and sheep, and oxen, and cattle, very many.