(Exodus 12:43) "And the L–rd said to Moses and Aaron": There are some sections (in the Torah) which are generic in the beginning and specific after, and some which are specific in the beginning and generic after. (Exodus 19:6) "And you shall be unto Me a kingdom of lords and a holy nation" — specific; (Ibid.) "these are the things that you shall speak" — generic. (Numbers 19:2) "This is the statute of the Torah" — generic; (Ibid.) "They shall take to you a red heifer" — specific. (Exodus 12:43) "This is the statute of the Paschal offering" — generic; (Ibid.) "No stranger may eat of it" — specific. There is subsumed in the generic only what is in the specific.
"This is the statute of the Paschal offering." Scripture speaks of (both) the Pesach of Egypt and the Pesach for all the generations. These are the words of R. Oshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Scripture speaks of the Pesach of Egypt. Whence do I derive (the same for) the Pesach of all the generations? From (Numbers 9:3) "according to all of its statutes and all of its ordinances." R. Yoshiyah said to him: Scripture (here) speaks of (both) the Pesach of Egypt and the Pesach for all the generations. What is the intent of "according to all of its statutes and all of its ordinances"? Scripture (there) comes to speak of details which are lacking here. R. Issi b. Akiva says: "statutes" (in Numbers 9:3) applies only (directly) to the body of the Paschal offering.
"No stranger may eat of it": Both a heretical Jew and a non-Jew are herein subsumed, viz. (Ezekiel 44:9) "And every stranger, uncircumcised of flesh and uncircumcised of heart shall not enter My sanctuary.
(Exodus 12:44) "And every servant of a man": This tells me only of the servant of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) the servant of a woman and a minor? From "acquired by money" — in any event.
"and you shall circumcise him; then shall he eat of it": his master. We are hereby apprised that (non-) circumcision of his servants prevents him from eating the Pesach offering. This tells me only of the circumcision of his servants. Whence do I derive (the same for) the circumcision of his (own) males? It is derived by analogy, viz.: It is written here "then," and elsewhere, (Ibid. 48, in respect to a proselyte), "then." Just as there, the circumcision of his (the proselyte's) males is referred to, here, too, the circumcision of one's males is understood (as a prerequisite for his offering of the Pesach.) And just as here, the (non-) circumcision of his servants (prevents him from eating the Pesach), so, there, (in respect to a proselyte, the same obtains.)
R. Eliezer says: The (non-) circumcision of one's servants does not prevent him from eating the Pesach. And what is the intent of "and you shall circumcise him, etc."? If one had uncircumcised servants, whence is it derived that if he wished to circumcise them and feed them (of the Pesach offering) he may do so? From "you shall circumcise him; then he may eat of it" — the servant. And thus do we find that he is permitted to have uncircumcised man-servants, it being written (Exodus 23:12) "and there be refreshed (on the Sabbath) the son of your maid-servant and the stranger" (a ger toshav).
R. Akiva says: One may not keep uncircumcised men-servants. If so, what is the intent of "and there be refreshed the son of your maid-servant and the stranger"? To teach that if his master acquired him on Sabbath eve before it got dark and he had no chance to circumcise him before the onset of the Sabbath — in such an instance, "and there be refreshed the son of your maid-servant and the stranger." ...
Variantly: "and you shall circumcise him; then he shall eat of it": to include one in whom the mitzvah of circumcision was fulfilled for even a short time — Even if the flesh returned and covered the corona, this does not prevent him from eating either the Pesach or terumah. Our teachers in Lod took a consensus on this and ruled: There is no "interposition" ("chatzitzah," in this regard) in respect to (certain halachoth of) terumah.
(Exodus 12:45) "A toshav and a sachir may not eat of it": "toshav": a resident proselyte (one who undertakes not to serve idolatry) and a sachir (a hired) gentile may not eat of it.
R. Eliezer says: What is the intent of "toshav and sachir"? (i.e., Is it not already written [Exodus 12:43] "No stranger may eat of it"?) To reason from Pesach to terumah to forbid it to one who is uncircumcised. But even if it were not written, would I not know it a fortiori, viz.: If the Pesach offering, of lesser stringency, is forbidden to the uncircumcised, how much more so, terumah, of greater stringency! — No, this may be true of Pesach, whose permitted time of eating is limited, wherefore it is forbidden to the uncircumcised, as opposed to terumah, whose permitted time of eating is extended. It is, therefore, written "toshav and sachir" in respect to Pesach and an extra "toshav and sachir" in respect to terumah towards the formulation of a gezeirah shavah . Just as here, (the Pesach offering) is forbidden to the uncircumcised, so, there, terumah is forbidden to the uncircumcised.
R. Yitzchak says: What is the intent of "toshav and sachir"? Is it not already written "No stranger may eat of it"? (For if it were not written), I would think that a circumcised Arab and a circumcised Giveonite, (not being strangers to the land) may eat of the Pesach. It is, therefore, written "No stranger may eat of it."
(Exodus 12:46) "In one house shall it be eaten": R. Shimon b. Yochai says: In one group. You say in one group, but perhaps (the intent is) "in one house," literally? (This is not so, for) from (Ibid. 12:7) "of the houses where they eat it" I learn that it may be eaten in many houses." How, then, am I to understand "In one house shall it be eaten"? In one group — whence he ruled: The Pesach may be eaten in two places, but not in two groups.
R. Shimon b. Yochai says: "in two places" — How so? If they were in one house and the roof fell in, they (as one group) go outside. If they were in the yard and it started to rain, they go into the house — so they are found to eat (as one group) in two places.
(Ibid. 46) "Do not take from the house outside": outside of the group. But perhaps (the intent is) outside of the house? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. "of the flesh) outside" — outside (the group) where it is eaten. But if he did take it out, I would understand that though he transgresses a mitzvah, it is still kasher. (No,) Since peace-offerings are kodshim kalim (lower-order offerings) and the Pesach is kodshim kalim, then if we have learned about peace-offerings that if he takes them outside (of Jerusalem) he renders them unfit, so, the Pesach, if he takes it outside, he renders it unfit.
"you shall not take out of the house": Scripture speaks of the flesh. You say it speaks of the flesh, but perhaps it speaks both of flesh and bone? It is, therefore, written "you shall not take out of the house, of the flesh." Scripture speaks of the flesh.
(Exodus 12:46) "And a bone shall you not break in it": What is the intent of this? Is it not already written (Ibid. 8) "And they shall eat the flesh on this night"? (They are to eat) the flesh that is outside the bone. But perhaps (they are to eat) the flesh (i.e., the marrow) that is inside the bone? And how am I to fulfill "And a bone shall you not break in it"? With a bone that has no flesh inside it? It is, therefore, written "And a bone you shall not break" — whether or not it has flesh.
Variantly: "in it," (i.e., the interdict applies to the Pesach) and not to other offerings. For (without the verse it would follow otherwise, viz.:) If with Pesach, of lesser stringency, he transgresses "And a bone shall you not break in it," how much more so with offerings of greater stringency! It is, therefore, (to indicate otherwise) written "in it," but not in other offerings.
(Exodus 12:47) "The entire congregation of Israel shall offer it": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 21) "Draw forth and take for yourselves sheep for your families," I might think that just as the Pesach of Egypt is kasher only (if eaten) by families, so, the Pesach for future generations. It is, therefore, written "the entire congregation of Israel," whereby we are apprised that the Pesach of future generations may be eaten in all kinds of groups, (and not just in family groups).
(Exodus 12:48) "And if there live with you a stranger (i.e., a proselyte), etc." I might think that as soon as he becomes a proselyte he offers the Pesach; it is, therefore, written (Exodus 12:48) "and he shall be as the citizen of the land." Just as the latter (offers the Pesach) on the fourteenth (of Nissan), so the proselyte.
R. Shimon says: If one became a proselyte between the two Pesachs (Pesach rishon and Pesach sheni), I might think he offers the second Pesach; it is, therefore, written "and he shall be as the citizen of the land." Just as the first, who did not offer the first (though normally being obliged to do so), offers the second, so, a proselyte, who did not offer the first offers the second, (to exclude one who became a proselyte between the two Pesachs, who was never obliged to offer the first Pesach.)
"let all of his males be circumcised": We are hereby apprised that (non) circumcision of his males prevents him from offering the Pesach. Whence do we derive the same for (non) circumcision of his servants? It follows inductively, viz.: It is written here "then" ("and then he shall draw near to offer it"), and elsewhere (in relation to one's servant [Ibid. 44]), "then." Just as there, circumcision of his servants is referred to, so, here. And just as there, circumcision of his males (is required), so, here, circumcision of his males. These are the words of R. Yishmael.
R. Yonathan says: The (non) circumcision of his males does not prevent him from eating the Pesach. What, then, is the intent of "let all of his males be circumcised, etc."? If one had before him two mitzvoth — that of Pesach and that of circumcision — I would not know which one should take precedence. "Let all his males be circumcised" tells us that circumcision takes precedence to Pesach.
R. Nathan says: "Let all of his males be circumcised, etc.": to exclude (from preventing his master from eating the Pesach) a servant who immersed (for proselytization) before his master and (thereby) became free of him.
It happened with Beluria the proselytess that some of her maid-servants immersed (for proselytization) before her, and some, after her, and when the matter came before the sages, they ruled that those who immersed before here were free, and those who immersed after her, were bound to her — in spite of which they (i.e., even the latter) served her until the day of her death.
"And every uncircumcised one shall not eat of it": What is the intent of this? Is it not already written (Ibid. 43) "No stranger may eat of it"? I might think that an uncircumcised Israelite may eat of it; it is, therefore, written "and every uncircumcised one shall not eat of it."
(Exodus 12:49) "One Torah shall there be for the citizen, etc." What is the intent of this? Is it not already written (Ibid. 48) "And he shall be as the citizen of the land"? From "And if there live with you a stranger and he would offer a Pesach to the L–rd," I would think that the proselyte is equated with the citizen only in respect to the Pesach. Whence do I derive (the same for) all the mitzvoth of the Torah? From "One Torah shall there be for the citizen and for the stranger."
(שמות יב,מג) ["וַיֹּאמֶר יי אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן: זֹאת חֻקַּת הַפָּסַח: כָּל בֶּן נֵכָר לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ."] "וַיֹּאמֶר יי אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן: זֹאת חֻקַּת הַפָּסַח", יֵשׁ פַּרְשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁהוּא כּוֹלֵל בַּתְּחִלָּה וּפוֹרֵט בַּסּוֹף, פּוֹרֵט בַּתְּחִלָּה וְכוֹלֵל בַּסּוֹף: (שמות יט,ו) "וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים וְגוֹי קָדוֹשׁ", פְּרָט; "אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר תדַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל", כְּלָל. (במדבר יט,ב) "זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה", כְּלָל; "וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה", פְּרָט. "זֹאת חֻקַּת הַפָּסַח", כְּלָל; "כָּל בֶּן נֵכָר לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ", פְּרָט. כְּלָל וּפְרָט, אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט.
(Exodus 12:43) "And the L–rd said to Moses and Aaron": There are some sections (in the Torah) which are generic in the beginning and specific after, and some which are specific in the beginning and generic after. (Exodus 19:6) "And you shall be unto Me a kingdom of lords and a holy nation" — specific; (Ibid.) "these are the things that you shall speak" — generic. (Numbers 19:2) "This is the statute of the Torah" — generic; (Ibid.) "They shall take to you a red heifer" — specific. (Exodus 12:43) "This is the statute of the Paschal offering" — generic; (Ibid.) "No stranger may eat of it" — specific. There is subsumed in the generic only what is in the specific.
"זֹאת חֻקַּת הַפָּסַח". בְּפֶסַח מִצְרָיִם וּבְפֶסַח דּוֹרוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: בְּפֶסַח מִצְרָיִם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא פֶסַח מִצְרָיִם, פֶּסַח דּוֹרוֹת מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (במדבר ט,ג) "כְּכָל חֻקֹּתָיו וּכְכָל מִשְׁפָּטָיו תַּעֲשׂוּ אֹתוֹ." נָם לוֹ רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה:*נָם לוֹ: אמר לו. אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה, בְּפֶסַח מִצְרָיִם וּבְפֶסַח דּוֹרוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (במדבר ט,ג) "כְּכָל חֻקֹּתָיו וּכְכָל מִשְׁפָּטָיו"? אֶלָּא בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמֵּד בּוֹ דְּבָרִים מְחֻסָּרִים בּוֹ. אִיסֵי בֶּן עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: חֻקָּה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּפֶּסַח אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא גוּפוֹ.
"This is the statute of the Paschal offering." Scripture speaks of (both) the Pesach of Egypt and the Pesach for all the generations. These are the words of R. Oshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Scripture speaks of the Pesach of Egypt. Whence do I derive (the same for) the Pesach of all the generations? From (Numbers 9:3) "according to all of its statutes and all of its ordinances." R. Yoshiyah said to him: Scripture (here) speaks of (both) the Pesach of Egypt and the Pesach for all the generations. What is the intent of "according to all of its statutes and all of its ordinances"? Scripture (there) comes to speak of details which are lacking here. R. Issi b. Akiva says: "statutes" (in Numbers 9:3) applies only (directly) to the body of the Paschal offering.
"כָּל בֶּן נֵכָר לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ." אֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשֻׁמָּד וְאֶחָד גּוֹי בְּמַשְׁמָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (יחזקאל מד,ט)*יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשֻׁמָּד: יהודי שהמיר את דתו. "כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יי: כָּל בֶּן נֵכָר עֶרֶל לֵב וְעֶרֶל בָּשָׂר לֹא יָבוֹא אֶל מִקְדָּשִׁי, לְכָל בֶּן נֵכָר אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל."
"No stranger may eat of it": Both a heretical Jew and a non-Jew are herein subsumed, viz. (Ezekiel 44:9) "And every stranger, uncircumcised of flesh and uncircumcised of heart shall not enter My sanctuary.
(שמות יב,מד) ["וְכָל עֶבֶד אִישׁ, מִקְנַת כָּסֶף, וּמַלְתָּה אֹתוֹ, אָז יֹאכַל בּוֹ."] "וְכָל עֶבֶד אִישׁ", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עֶבֶד אִישׁ, עֶבֶד אִשָּׁה וְקָטָן מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "מִקְנַת כָּסֶף", מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
(Exodus 12:44) "And every servant of a man": This tells me only of the servant of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) the servant of a woman and a minor? From "acquired by money" — in any event.
"וּמַלְתָּה אֹתוֹ, אָז יֹאכַל בּוֹ." "אָז יֹאכַל בּוֹ" רַבּוֹ. מַגִּיד שֶׁמִּילַת עֲבָדָיו מְעַכְּבַתּוּ לֹאכַל בַּפֶּסַח. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִילַת עֲבָדָיו, מִילַת זְכָרִים מְנַיִן? הֲרֵי אַתְּ דָן: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "אָז", וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן "אָז"; מַה לְּהַלָּן מִילַת זְכָרִים, אַף כָּן מִילַת זְכָרִים. מַה כָּן מִילַת עֲבָדָיו, אַף לְהַלָּן מִילַת עֲבָדָיו. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
"and you shall circumcise him; then shall he eat of it": his master. We are hereby apprised that (non-) circumcision of his servants prevents him from eating the Pesach offering. This tells me only of the circumcision of his servants. Whence do I derive (the same for) the circumcision of his (own) males? It is derived by analogy, viz.: It is written here "then," and elsewhere, (Ibid. 48, in respect to a proselyte), "then." Just as there, the circumcision of his (the proselyte's) males is referred to, here, too, the circumcision of one's males is understood (as a prerequisite for his offering of the Pesach.) And just as here, the (non-) circumcision of his servants (prevents him from eating the Pesach), so, there, (in respect to a proselyte, the same obtains.)
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אֵין מִילַת עֲבָדָיו מְעַכְּבַתּוּ לֹאכַל בַּפֶּסַח. וּמַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "וּמַלְתָּה אֹתוֹ, אָז יֹאכַל בּוֹ"? אֶלָּא הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיוּ לְפָנָיו עֲבָדִים עֲרֵלִים, מְנַיִן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר, שֶׁאִם רָצָה לְמָהְלָן וּלְהַאֲכִילָן בַּפֶּסַח, שֶׁהוּא רַשַּׁי? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וּמַלְתָּה אֹתוֹ, אָז יֹאכַל בּוֹ". מָצִינוּ שֶׁהוּא רַשַּׁי לְקַיֵּם לוֹ עֲבָדִים עֲרֵלִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כג,יב) "וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן אֲמָתְךָ וְהַגֵּר".
R. Eliezer says: The (non-) circumcision of one's servants does not prevent him from eating the Pesach. And what is the intent of "and you shall circumcise him, etc."? If one had uncircumcised servants, whence is it derived that if he wished to circumcise them and feed them (of the Pesach offering) he may do so? From "you shall circumcise him; then he may eat of it" — the servant. And thus do we find that he is permitted to have uncircumcised man-servants, it being written (Exodus 23:12) "and there be refreshed (on the Sabbath) the son of your maid-servant and the stranger" (a ger toshav).
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁי לְקַיֵּם לוֹ עֲבָדִים עֲרֵלִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וּמַלְתָּה אֹתוֹ". אִם כֵּן, מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן אֲמָתְךָ וְהַגֵּר"? לוֹמַר לָךְ, הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ רַבּוֹ עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁכָה, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְמָהְלוֹ עַד שֶׁהֶחְשִׁיךְ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר "וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן אֲמָתְךָ וְהַגֵּר".
R. Akiva says: One may not keep uncircumcised men-servants. If so, what is the intent of "and there be refreshed the son of your maid-servant and the stranger"? To teach that if his master acquired him on Sabbath eve before it got dark and he had no chance to circumcise him before the onset of the Sabbath — in such an instance, "and there be refreshed the son of your maid-servant and the stranger." ...
דָּבָר אַחֵר: "וּמַלְתָּה אֹתוֹ, אָז יֹאכַל בּוֹ", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְהָבִיא אֶת שֶׁנִּתְקַיְּמָה בוֹ מִצְוַת מִילָה אֲפִלּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת, אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁחָזַר הַבָּשָׂר וְחִפָּה אֶת הָעֲטָרָה, אֵינוֹ מְעַכְּבוֹ לֹא לֹאכַל בַּפֶּסַח וְלֹא לֹאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה, עַל זֶה נִמְנוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בְּלוֹד וְאָמְרוּ: אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ לַטֻּמְאָה.
Variantly: "and you shall circumcise him; then he shall eat of it": to include one in whom the mitzvah of circumcision was fulfilled for even a short time — Even if the flesh returned and covered the corona, this does not prevent him from eating either the Pesach or terumah. Our teachers in Lod took a consensus on this and ruled: There is no "interposition" ("chatzitzah," in this regard) in respect to (certain halachoth of) terumah.
(שמות יב,מה) "תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ." "תּוֹשָׁב", זֶה גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב; "שָׂכִיר", זֶה הַגּוֹי.
(Exodus 12:45) "A toshav and a sachir may not eat of it": "toshav": a resident proselyte (one who undertakes not to serve idolatry) and a sachir (a hired) gentile may not eat of it.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: "תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לָדוּן מִן הַפֶּסַח עַל הַתְּרוּמָה, לִפְסֹל בָּהּ אֶת הֶעָרֵל. עַד שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר, יֵשׁ לִי בַדִּין: מָה, אִם הַפֶּסַח הַקַּל, פָּסַל בּוֹ אֶת הֶעָרֵל, תְּרוּמָה הַחֲמוּרָה, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּפְסֹל בָּהּ אֶת הֶעָרֵל? לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַּפֶּסַח, שֶׁמִּעֵט בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב זְמַן אֲכִילָתוֹ לְאוֹכְלָיו, לְפִיכָךְ פָּסַל בּוֹ אֶת הֶעָרֵל, תֹּאמַר בִּתְרוּמַה, שֶּׁרִבָּה הַכָּתוּב זְמַן אֲכִילָתָהּ לְאוֹכְלֶיהָ, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנִּפְסֹל בָּהּ אֶת הֶעָרֵל? שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד (לוֹמַר) "תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר" בַּפֶּסַח, "תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר" בִּתְרוּמָה, אֶלָּא מֻפְנֶה לְהַקִּישׁ וְלָדוּן גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה: נֶאֱמַר "תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר" בַּפֶּסַח, וְנֶאֱמַר "תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר" בִּתְרוּמָה. מַה כָּן פָּסַל בּוֹ אֶת הֶעָרֵל, אַף לְהַלָּן, פָּסַל בּוֹ אֶת הֶעָרֵל.
R. Eliezer says: What is the intent of "toshav and sachir"? (i.e., Is it not already written [Exodus 12:43] "No stranger may eat of it"?) To reason from Pesach to terumah to forbid it to one who is uncircumcised. But even if it were not written, would I not know it a fortiori, viz.: If the Pesach offering, of lesser stringency, is forbidden to the uncircumcised, how much more so, terumah, of greater stringency! — No, this may be true of Pesach, whose permitted time of eating is limited, wherefore it is forbidden to the uncircumcised, as opposed to terumah, whose permitted time of eating is extended. It is, therefore, written "toshav and sachir" in respect to Pesach and an extra "toshav and sachir" in respect to terumah towards the formulation of a gezeirah shavah . Just as here, (the Pesach offering) is forbidden to the uncircumcised, so, there, terumah is forbidden to the uncircumcised.
רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: "תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ" לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר "כָּל בֶּן נֵכָר לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ"? אֲבָל אִם הָיָה עֲרָבִי מָהוּל וְגִבְעוֹנִי מָהוּל, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, יְהֵי כָשֵׁר לֹאכַל בַּפֶּסַח! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ".
R. Yitzchak says: What is the intent of "toshav and sachir"? Is it not already written "No stranger may eat of it"? (For if it were not written), I would think that a circumcised Arab and a circumcised Giveonite, (not being strangers to the land) may eat of the Pesach. It is, therefore, written "No stranger may eat of it."
(שמות יב,מו) ["בְּבַיִת אֶחָד יֵאָכֵל, לֹא תוֹצִיא מִן הַבַּיִת מִן הַבָּשָׂר חוּצָה, וְעֶצֶם לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ בוֹ."] "בְּבַיִת אֶחָד יֵאָכֵל", בַּחֲבוֹרָה אַחַת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בַּחֲבוֹרָה אַחַת, אוֹ בְּבַיִת אֶחָד כִּשְׁמוּעוֹ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (שמות יב,ז) "עַל הַבָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר יֹאכְלוּ אֹתוֹ בָּהֶם", הָא לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱכָל בְּבָתִּים הַרְבֵּה. הָא מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "בְּבַיִת אֶחָד"? בַּחֲבוֹרָה אַחַת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּם "עַל הַבָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר יֹאכְלוּ אֹתוֹ בָּהֶם"? מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: הַפֶּסַח נֶאֱכָל בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת, וְאֵין אוֹכְלָיו אוֹכְלִין אוֹתוֹ בִשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת.
(Exodus 12:46) "In one house shall it be eaten": R. Shimon b. Yochai says: In one group. You say in one group, but perhaps (the intent is) "in one house," literally? (This is not so, for) from (Ibid. 12:7) "of the houses where they eat it" I learn that it may be eaten in many houses." How, then, am I to understand "In one house shall it be eaten"? In one group — whence he ruled: The Pesach may be eaten in two places, but not in two groups.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת, כֵּיצַד? הָיוּ בְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וּבָקְעָה עֲלֵיהֶם הַקּוֹרָה וְיוֹצְאִין לַחוּץ;*בָּקְעָה: נשברה. הָיוּ בֶּחָצֵר וְיָרְדוּ גְּשָׁמִים עֲלֵיהֶם, וְנִכְנְסוּ בְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, נִמְצְאוּ אוֹכְלָיו אוֹכְלִין אוֹתוֹ בִשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת.
R. Shimon b. Yochai says: "in two places" — How so? If they were in one house and the roof fell in, they (as one group) go outside. If they were in the yard and it started to rain, they go into the house — so they are found to eat (as one group) in two places.
"לֹא תוֹצִיא מִן הַבַּיִת מִן הַבָּשָׂר חוּצָה, וְעֶצֶם לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ בוֹ." חוּץ לַחֲבוֹרָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר חוּץ לַחֲבוֹרָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא חוּץ לַבַּיִת? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "חוּצָה", חוּץ לַאֲכִילָתוֹ. הָא אִם הוֹצִיא, עָבַר עַל מִצְוָה. שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, יְהֵי כָשֵׁר! וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן: הוֹאִיל וּשְׁלָמִים קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וְהַפֶּסַח קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים, אִם לָמַדְתָּ עַל שְׁלָמִים שֶׁאִם הוֹצִיאָן לַחוּץ, פְּסָלָן, יָכֹל אַף הַפֶּסַח, אִם הוֹצִיאוֹ לַחוּץ, פְּסָלוֹ! הָא מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "לֹא תוֹצִיא מִן הַבַּיִת מִן הַבָּשָׂר חוּצָה"? חוּץ לַחֲבוֹרָה.
(Ibid. 46) "Do not take from the house outside": outside of the group. But perhaps (the intent is) outside of the house? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. "of the flesh) outside" — outside (the group) where it is eaten. But if he did take it out, I would understand that though he transgresses a mitzvah, it is still kasher. (No,) Since peace-offerings are kodshim kalim (lower-order offerings) and the Pesach is kodshim kalim, then if we have learned about peace-offerings that if he takes them outside (of Jerusalem) he renders them unfit, so, the Pesach, if he takes it outside, he renders it unfit.
"לֹא תוֹצִיא מִן הַבַּיִת מִן הַבָּשָׂר חוּצָה", בַּבָּשָׂר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בַּבָּשָׂר, אוֹ אֶחָד בָּשָׂר וְאֶחָד עֶצֶם פָּסוּל? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "בְּבַיִת אֶחָד יֵאָכֵל, לֹא תוֹצִיא מִן הַבַּיִת מִן הַבָּשָׂר חוּצָה, וְעֶצֶם לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ בוֹ", בַּבָּשָׂר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
"you shall not take out of the house": Scripture speaks of the flesh. You say it speaks of the flesh, but perhaps it speaks both of flesh and bone? It is, therefore, written "you shall not take out of the house, of the flesh." Scripture speaks of the flesh.
"וְעֶצֶם לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ בוֹ" לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר: (שמות יב,ח) "וְאָכְלוּ אֶת הַבָּשָׂר בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה"? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "וְאָכְלוּ אֶת הַבָּשָׂר", הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁחוּצָה לָעֶצֶם. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָעֶצֶם, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הָעֶצֶם? וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּם "וְעֶצֶם לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ בוֹ"? עֶצֶם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ בָשָׂר, אוֹ עֶצֶם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ בָשָׂר? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְעֶצֶם לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ בוֹ", בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ בָשָׂר בֵּין שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ בָשָׂר.
(Exodus 12:46) "And a bone shall you not break in it": What is the intent of this? Is it not already written (Ibid. 8) "And they shall eat the flesh on this night"? (They are to eat) the flesh that is outside the bone. But perhaps (they are to eat) the flesh (i.e., the marrow) that is inside the bone? And how am I to fulfill "And a bone shall you not break in it"? With a bone that has no flesh inside it? It is, therefore, written "And a bone you shall not break" — whether or not it has flesh.
"בוֹ", וְלֹא בִשְׁאָר קֳדָשִׁים. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין: מָה, אִם פֶּסַח הַקַּל, הֲרֵי הוּא עוֹבֵר עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם 'בַּל תִּשְׁבֹּר', קֳדָשִׁים חֲמוּרִים, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיַּעֲבֹר עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם 'בַּל תִּשְׁבֹּר'? הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "בוֹ"? "בוֹ", וְלֹא בִשְׁאָר כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים.
Variantly: "in it," (i.e., the interdict applies to the Pesach) and not to other offerings. For (without the verse it would follow otherwise, viz.:) If with Pesach, of lesser stringency, he transgresses "And a bone shall you not break in it," how much more so with offerings of greater stringency! It is, therefore, (to indicate otherwise) written "in it," but not in other offerings.
(שמות יב,מז) "כָּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יַעֲשׂוּ אֹתוֹ." לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (שמות יב,כא) "מִשְׁכוּ וּקְחוּ לָכֶם צֹאן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתֵיכֶם וְשַׁחֲטוּ הַפָּסַח", יָכֹל כַּשֵּׁם שֶׁפֶּסַח מִצְרָיִם אֵינוֹ כָשֵׁר אֶלָּא לְמִשְׁפָּחָה, כָּךְ פֶּסַח דּוֹרוֹת לֹא יְהֵי כָשֵׁר אֶלָּא לְמִשְׁפָּחָה? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "כָּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל", מַגִּיד שֶׁפֶּסַח דּוֹרוֹת בְּעִרְבּוּבְיָה.
(Exodus 12:47) "The entire congregation of Israel shall offer it": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 21) "Draw forth and take for yourselves sheep for your families," I might think that just as the Pesach of Egypt is kasher only (if eaten) by families, so, the Pesach for future generations. It is, therefore, written "the entire congregation of Israel," whereby we are apprised that the Pesach of future generations may be eaten in all kinds of groups, (and not just in family groups).
(שמות יב,מח) ["וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר, וְעָשָׂה פֶסַח לַיי, הִמּוֹל לוֹ כָל זָכָר, וְאָז יִקְרַב לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ, וְהָיָה כְּאֶזְרַח הָאָרֶץ, וְכָל עָרֵל לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ."] "וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר, וְעָשָׂה פֶסַח לַיי". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְגַּיַּר, יַעֲשֶׂה פֶסַח מִיָּד! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְהָיָה כְּאֶזְרַח הָאָרֶץ". מָה אֶזְרָח בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, אַף גֵּר בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר.
(Exodus 12:48) "And if there live with you a stranger (i.e., a proselyte), etc." I might think that as soon as he becomes a proselyte he offers the Pesach; it is, therefore, written (Exodus 12:48) "and he shall be as the citizen of the land." Just as the latter (offers the Pesach) on the fourteenth (of Nissan), so the proselyte.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי שֶׁנִּתְגַּיַּר בֵּין שְׁנֵי פְסָחִים, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, יַעֲשֶׂה פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְהָיָה כְּאֶזְרַח הָאָרֶץ", מָה אֶזְרַח שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן, יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי, כָּךְ כָּל שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן, יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי.
R. Shimon says: If one became a proselyte between the two Pesachs (Pesach rishon and Pesach sheni), I might think he offers the second Pesach; it is, therefore, written "and he shall be as the citizen of the land." Just as the first, who did not offer the first (though normally being obliged to do so), offers the second, so, a proselyte, who did not offer the first offers the second, (to exclude one who became a proselyte between the two Pesachs, who was never obliged to offer the first Pesach.)
"הִמּוֹל לוֹ כָל זָכָר, וְאָז יִקְרַב לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ". מַגִּיד שֶׁמִּילַת זְכָרִים מְעַכְּבַתּוּ מִלֹּאכַל בַּפֶּסַח. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִילַת זְכָרִים, מִילַת עֲבָדִים מְנַיִן? הֲרֵי אֲנִי דָן: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "אָז", וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן "אָז"; מַה לְּהַלָּן מִילַת עֲבָדִים, אַף כָּן מִילַת עֲבָדִים. וּמָה כָּן מִילַת זְכָרִים, אַף לְהַלָּן מִילַת זְכָרִים. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
"let all of his males be circumcised": We are hereby apprised that (non) circumcision of his males prevents him from offering the Pesach. Whence do we derive the same for (non) circumcision of his servants? It follows inductively, viz.: It is written here "then" ("and then he shall draw near to offer it"), and elsewhere (in relation to one's servant [Ibid. 44]), "then." Just as there, circumcision of his servants is referred to, so, here. And just as there, circumcision of his males (is required), so, here, circumcision of his males. These are the words of R. Yishmael.
רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵין מִילַת זְכָרִים מְעַכְּבַתּוּ מִלֹּאכַל בַּפֶּסַח. וּמַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "הִמּוֹל לוֹ כָל זָכָר וְאָז יִקְרַב לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ"? אֶלָּא הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי מִצְווֹת, מִצְוַת פֶּסַח וּמִצְוַת מִילָה, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ מֵהֶם תִּקְדֹּם. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: "הִמּוֹל לוֹ כָל זָכָר וְאָז יִקְרַב לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ", תִּקְדֹּם מִצְוַת מִילָה לְמִצְוַת הַפֶּסַח.
R. Yonathan says: The (non) circumcision of his males does not prevent him from eating the Pesach. What, then, is the intent of "let all of his males be circumcised, etc."? If one had before him two mitzvoth — that of Pesach and that of circumcision — I would not know which one should take precedence. "Let all his males be circumcised" tells us that circumcision takes precedence to Pesach.
רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד (לוֹמַר) "הִמּוֹל לוֹ", אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא אֶת הָעֶבֶד שֶׁטָּבַל לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ, וְיָצָא לְבֶן חוֹרִין.
R. Nathan says: "Let all of his males be circumcised, etc.": to exclude (from preventing his master from eating the Pesach) a servant who immersed (for proselytization) before his master and (thereby) became free of him.
מַעֲשֶׂה בִּבְלוּרְיָה,*בְלוּרְיָה: מטרונה רומית בשם Valeria. שֶׁטָּבְלוּ מִקְצָת שִׁפְחוֹתֶיהָ לְפָנֶיהָ, וּמִקְצָתָן לְאַחֲרֶיהָ. וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְאָמְרוּ: אֶת שֶׁטָּבְלוּ לְפָנֶיהָ, בְּנוֹת חוֹרִין, וּלְאַחֲרֶיהָ, מְשֻׁעְבָּדוֹת. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן, מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת הָיוּ אוֹתָהּ עַד יוֹם מוֹתָהּ.
It happened with Beluria the proselytess that some of her maid-servants immersed (for proselytization) before her, and some, after her, and when the matter came before the sages, they ruled that those who immersed before here were free, and those who immersed after her, were bound to her — in spite of which they (i.e., even the latter) served her until the day of her death.
"וְכָל עָרֵל לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ" לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (שמות יב,מג) "כָּל בֶּן נֵכָר לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ"? אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל עָרֵל, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, יְהֵי כָשֵׁר לֹאכַל בַּפֶּסַח! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְכָל עָרֵל לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ".
"And every uncircumcised one shall not eat of it": What is the intent of this? Is it not already written (Ibid. 43) "No stranger may eat of it"? I might think that an uncircumcised Israelite may eat of it; it is, therefore, written "and every uncircumcised one shall not eat of it."
(שמות יב,מט) "תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָאֶזְרָח וְלַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכְכֶם." לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר: (שמות יב,מח) "וְהָיָה כְּאֶזְרַח הָאָרֶץ"? וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָאֶזְרָח וְלַגֵּר"? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר "וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר, וְעָשָׂה פֶסַח", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא פֶּסַח שֶׁהִשְׁוָה בּוֹ אֶת הַגֵּר לָאֶזְרָח! שְׁאָר כָּל מִצְווֹת מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָאֶזְרָח וְלַגֵּר", בָּא הַכָּתוּב וְהִשְׁוָה אֶת הַגֵּר לָאֶזְרָח בְּכָל הַמִּצְווֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.
(Exodus 12:49) "One Torah shall there be for the citizen, etc." What is the intent of this? Is it not already written (Ibid. 48) "And he shall be as the citizen of the land"? From "And if there live with you a stranger and he would offer a Pesach to the L–rd," I would think that the proselyte is equated with the citizen only in respect to the Pesach. Whence do I derive (the same for) all the mitzvoth of the Torah? From "One Torah shall there be for the citizen and for the stranger."