Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Torah

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., etc., applying as it does for all time, it is sufficient for Scripture to mention only Moses and Aaron in connection with it, since they are in place of Israel for all times. But since the command mentioned in Verse 3, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, applied only to the paschal offering in Egypt, He therefore preceded it again by saying, Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, the Israel of that time. According to the Midrashic interpretation, 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.,, 29:1. and so in all cases. Just as in counting the weekdays we always remember the Sabbath-day since the weekdays have no specific name of their own, but instead are called “one day in the Sabbath,” “the second day in the Sabbath,” as I will explain, so we remember the exodus from Egypt in our counting “the first month,” “the second month,” “the third month,” etc., to our redemption. This order of the counting of the months is not in regard to the years, for the beginning of our years is from Tishri, [the seventh month], as it is written, And the feast of ingathering at the turn of the year,, 34:22. Now the feast of ingathering is in the seventh month (Leviticus 23:39) and yet Scripture calls it here at the turn of the year, which means the beginning of the new year. Thus we learn that Tishri is the beginning of the year, although in the order of the counting of the months it is the seventh month. and it is further written, And the feast of ingathering, at the end of the year., 23:16. If so, when we call the month of Nisan the first of the months and Tishri the seventh, the meaning thereof is “the first [month] to the redemption” and “the seventh month” thereto. This then is the intent of the expression, it shall be the first month to you, meaning that it is not the first in regard to the year but it is the first “to you,” i.e., that it be called “the first” for the purpose of remembering our redemption. Our Rabbis have already mentioned this matter when saying, “The names of the months came up with us from Babylon,” since at first we had no names for the months. The reason for this [adoption of the names of the months when our ancestors returned from Babylon to build the Second Temple], was that at first their reckoning was a memorial to the exodus from Egypt, but when we came up from Babylon, and the words of Scripture were fulfilled — And it shall no more be said: As the Eternal liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, but: As the Eternal liveth that brought up and that led the children of Israel from the land of the north is found ibid., 23:8. — from then on we began to call the months by the names they were called in the land of Babylon. We are thus reminded that there we stayed [during our exile] and from there, blessed G-d brought us up [to our Land]. These names — Nisan, Iyar, and the others — are Persian names and are to be found only in the books of the prophets of the Babylonian era and in the Scroll of Esther. It is for this reason that Scripture says, In the first month, which is the month of Nisan, Thus both memorials are mentioned simultaneously: the first month to our redemption from Egypt, which is the month of Nisan, a name which is reminiscent of our Babylonian exile from which we have also been redeemed. just as it says, they cast ‘pur,’ that is, the lot. In this case too Scripture explains the Persian word pur as meaning lot, just as it explained the name Nisan as being “the first month.” To this day, people of Persia and Media use these names of the months — Nisan, Tishri, and the others — as we do. Thus through the names of the months we remember our second redemption even as we had done until then with regard to the first one.

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, etc., (above, 8:22), Onkelos translated: “if we sacrifice that which the Egyptians worship.” In his Moreh Nebuchim (III, 46), Rambam also writes: “Scripture tells us, according to the version of Onkelos, that the Egyptians worshipped Aries, etc.” that the Egyptians worshipped it as a deity, He has all the more informed us through this that He subdued their gods and their powers at the height of their ascendancy. And thus the Rabbis have said: “Take you lambs and slaughter the gods of Egypt.”

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., 27:21. [Thus it proves that bein ha’arbayim does not begin with the seventh hour of the day as Rashi would have it, but at sundown near night.] Besides, the verse regarding the paschal offering itself states: There thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering at even, at the going down of the sun, at the time thou camest forth out of Egypt, 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] on a Festival day. and you burn it.” The Rabbi [Rashi] has already so commented [in his commentary to Deuteronomy 16:6]. The correct interpretation on this matter appears to me to be that the night is called erev, as it is said, ‘ba’erev’ ye shall eat unleavened bread, and this is at night, as it clearly states, And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread., Verse 8. 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; must mean at the end of the day. And it came to pass ‘ba’erev’ that the quails came up, and the quails did not come at night., Verse 12: At eventide ye shall eat flesh. This clearly indicates that the quails came before the night. The word ba’erev in the verse, And it came to pass ‘ba’erev’ that the quails came up, must therefore mean at the end of the day. There are many other such cases. It is further written: ‘Erev,’ and morning, and at noonday, I will sigh and moan. Now these three periods include the whole day [of twenty-four hours. Therefore, if we interpret erev as meaning actual night, the hours from noonday to night will be missing here. We must] thus conclude that [the period] immediately after noonday is called erev, [which lasts from the latter part of the day till morning. Thus the verse encompasses the whole day of twenty-four hours]. Morning is so called from sunrise and thence onward as long as the sun remains in the east. This period lasts four hours, just as the Rabbis testified that the morning Daily Whole-offering [for the entire congregation of Israel] may be offered in the [first] four hours of the day [but not later]. After morning, the time is called tzohorayim (noonday), just as it is said, from morning until ‘tzohorayim’ (noon). It consists of two hours: the fifth and the sixth hours of the day. The word tzohorayim is of the root ‘tzohar’ (A light) shalt thou make to the ark, and implies brightness. It is written in the plural [tzohorayim] because it is the two [brightest parts of the day] which, so to speak, make two tzohorayim. It may be that it is written in the plural because light is then disseminated on all sides. In the morning the light is centered in the east, and towards evening it is in the west, but in the middle of the day when it is high in the sky, it gives light on all sides. When tzohorayim (noonday) passes and the sun departs from shining upon two sides, the time of the day is called arbayim — [from the root erev (darkness)] - because the sun has darkened from [its state of shining on] those two sides. This period [of arbayim] lasts as long as the sun shines in the sky [and is permissible for the slaughtering of the Passover-offering]. But beginning with sundown, which is about an hour and a quarter [before the day terminates with the coming out of the stars], it is no longer the time for the slaughtering thereof according to the opinion of our Rabbis,. I might understand this to mean at the evening twilight. Scripture therefore says, etc.” for that period of time is no longer arbayim but rather erev yom (the evening of the day). (in the evening of the day) (Proverbs 7:9). The reason it is called bein ha’arbayim [in the Torah, and not just arbayim], is not that the word bein signifies here “between,” [as Rashi above explained that the expression bein ha’arbayim denotes that time-period which is “between” the beginning of those hours, etc.], but it is something like “in their midst,” similar to these verses: Let there now be an oath ‘beinotheinu beineinu ubeinecha';. But according to Ramban, the meaning thereof would be: “let there be an oath in our midst, even in us and in thee.” A piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is that ‘beini ubeincha’?;, 23:15. It is generally translated: between me and thee. Ramban understands it: “in the midst of me and you, the value of the land is not worth discussing.” And her stature was exalted ‘al bein’ (among) the thick branches; Take fire ‘mibeinoth’ the wheelwork,, 10:6. It is generally translated: “from ‘between’ the wheelwork.” which means from “within their midst”; Take up their fire-pans ‘mibein’ the burning, which means “from the midst thereof,” similar to the expression, She rises also ‘be’od’ night, which means in the midst of the night. And so is the expression bein ha’arbayim, [which signifies “in the midst of that part of the day called arbayim,” as explained above]. It does not state ba’arbayim, for that might have indicated the erev of many days. Thus Scripture is saying that we should slaughter the Passover-offering in the midst of the arbayim, since the time prescribed by the Torah for the slaughtering of the Passover-offering is from after the sixth hour of the day till the commencement of sunset. And Scripture also says, In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month ‘bein ha’arbayim’ (at eventide) is the Passover of the Eternal, which refers to the time of the slaughtering [of the Passover-offering]. Similarly, the verse, In the fourteenth day of this month ‘bein ha’arbayim’ ye shall observe it, refers to the beginning of the observance, which is the slaughtering, [while the eating of the Passover-offering takes place on the following night]. The verse stating [in connection with the quails], ‘bein ha’arbayim’ ye shall eat flesh, also refers to the hours mentioned, [i.e., from after the sixth hour of the day till the start of sunset], since they had extensive time for the eating of meat. The following verse there which states, And it came to pass ‘ba’erev’ (at even), that the quails came up,, Verse 13. is [so stated] because on the first day, the quails came up for one hour within that period called erev. which, as explained above, extends from immediately after tzohorayim until the end of the day — making a period of six hours — the quails came up for a time. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 327, for further discussion of this text. [Therefore it does not say, “and it came to pass bein ha’arbayim that the quails came up,” for that would have signified that the quails came up during the whole stretch of time from after the sixth hour of the day till sundown.] It is possible to explain the expression bein ha’arbayim in accordance with the explanation of Rashi, suggests two kinds of erev, and the word bein signifies “between.” Thus bein ha’arbayim denotes those hours which are between the darkening of the day and the darkening of the night. Thus is the explanation of Rashi. Ramban proceeds to confirm Rashi’s explanation that the word bein means “between,” but adds that the plural form of arbayim denotes two different periods of the day, unlike Rashi who wrote that it is between the darkening of the day and the darkening of the night, as will be explained. i.e., that there are two kinds of erev, an erev of the morning and an erev of the day, for Scripture so calls them: the ‘minchah’ of the morning,. and the ‘minchah’ of the evening, as it is said, And it came to pass in the morning, about the time of making the ‘minchah’,, 3:20. and it further says, And I sat appalled until the ‘minchah’ of the evening. And at the evening ‘minchah’ I arose up from my fasting. Now the word minchah is an expression denoting the resting of the sun and the diminution of its great light, just as the Targum rendered [l’ruach hayom] l’manach yoma (where the day comes to rest). [Adam and Eve] heard the voice of the Eternal G-d walking in the garden of Eden ‘l’ruach hayom,’ which Rashi interpreted: “in that direction towards which the sun travels, which is the west.” Onkelos rendered it: l’manach yoma, “in the afternoon,” or literally, “when the day comes to rest.” Thus it is seen that the word minchah denotes rest. And the plural form of arbayim connotes the two afternoons: “the greater afternoon,” [i.e., the time from six and a half hours after the beginning of the day], and “the smaller afternoon,” [i.e., from nine and a half hours after the start of the day until sunset], which the Sages have mentioned. Now during this entire period [of bein ha’arbayim], it is permissible to kindle the lamps of the candelabrum [in the Sanctuary] and to burn the incense, both of which are not permissible to be done at night but only at the time of the Daily Whole-offering of the eventide, and in fact their performance precedes the actual offering of the sacrifice upon the altar. Onkelos’ opinion seems to incline towards this explanation [that the plural form of arbayim denotes two different parts of the day], for he translated bein ha’arbayim as bein shimshaya (between the suns), meaning the times when the sun is in the east and the sun is in the west. The verse stating, Aaron and his sons shall set it in order from evening to morning, means [that it be given its due measure of oil] so that it may burn a whole night [although the actual kindling thereof could be done anytime in the bein ha’arbayim. It does not mean, as Ibn Ezra explained, that this verse teaches that the kindling of the candelabrum took place at sundown]. Thus we can explain the verse, There thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering ‘ba’erev’ (at even), also means the afternoon, etc. Ramban’s own explanation of this verse is yet to follow. to mean at the above-mentioned time, [i.e., the afternoon], for that is called erev [as explained]. The following expression there, at the going down of the sun, is connected with the following verse, And thou shalt roast and eat it., Verse 7. There are many such cases in Scripture [where an expression in one verse is connected with the following verse]. In my opinion however, the verse, There thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering, does not at all refer to the time of the slaughtering thereof, [which took place on the afternoon of the fourteenth day of Nisan]. Rather, the purport thereof is to state that at the place which the Eternal thy G-d chose to establish His name in, there thou shalt observe [the commandment concerning] the Passover-offering at night, at the going down of the sun, which is the time thou camest forth out of Egypt. It is concerning this performance that Scripture says [in the following verse], And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place, Verse 7. mentioned. The sacrifice itself is called zevach, — does not mean “slaughter,” in which case it would necessarily be referring to the afternoon of the fourteenth day of Nisan. Instead, Ramban proceeds to show that the word zevach refers to the sacrifice itself, and the verse therefore refers to the eating thereof which takes place on the following night of the fifteenth day. All this, however, is from the standpoint of the plain meaning of Scripture. Ramban has already noted that the Rabbis in the Talmud (see Note 125), as well as Rashi in his commentary to Deuteronomy 16:6, have explained tizbach as “slaughter.” as Scripture says, Thou shalt not offer the blood of ‘zivchi’ (My sacrifice) upon leaven, which means “My Passover-offering.” This then is the purport of the whole chapter [in Deuteronomy]: Observe the month of Aviv, and observe the Passover unto the Eternal thy G-d; for in the month of Aviv the Eternal thy G-d brought thee forth out of Egypt by night, etc. Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it. Thus He mentioned the observance of the Passover-offering and the night, [clearly indicating that in those verses, He refers only to the time of the eating of the Passover-offering, which occurs on the night of the fifteenth day, and not to the slaughtering thereof which takes place in the afternoon of the fourteenth day]. Commanding how they are to eat it, He then mentioned that [we must eat no leavened bread] for seven days., Verse 3. But in this entire chapter, there is not a single reference to the fourteenth day of Nisan on which the slaughtering of the Passover-offering takes place. Similarly He said there, Neither shall any of the flesh which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning,, Verse 4. Now the expression, the first day at even, [definitely] means the fifteenth day of Nisan, the first of the seven days mentioned,, Verse 3. since the fourteenth day is not mentioned here at all. So also, the verse stating, On the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, means the night of the fifteenth day. Thus the intent of the expression, which thou sacrificest the first day at even,, Verse 4. is that neither shall any of the flesh of the offering which you are eating on the night of the first day [of the seven-day festival] remain until the morning.

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. on the night of Passover, the wrapping together of unleavened bread and bitter herbs is observed “according to the custom of Hillel.” Thus [the word umatzoth (and unleavened bread)] is missing the letter beth, [which would make it ubematzoth (and with unleavened bread)], similar to the expressions: they shall wash ‘mayim’ (water) [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. (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Chametz Umatzah, 7:12). 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.

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..

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,, Verse 30. The verse there clearly states that “the great cry” was due to the death of the firstborn. whereas the judgments executed against their idols did not come to be known till the morning when they went to the house of their abominations. And it is written, And the Egyptians were burying them that the Eternal had smitten among them, even all their firstborn, and upon their gods the Eternal executed judgments. 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., 1:10. “And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments, and not by means of the messenger” sent by Him, blessed be He, for whatever is to be done upon the earth. This is the great angel, who on account of it is called Mattatron, the meaning of the word being “the guide of the road.” Thus the Rabbis have said in the Sifre:, 338. “The Holy One, blessed be He, was the mattatron (guide) for Moses, and He showed him the entire Land of Israel.” And in the [Midrash] Yelamdeinu (may our master teach us) i.e., about some matter of Halachic (legal) content. The Rabbi answered the question briefly and then turned to elaborate on the moral and ethical aspects connected therewith. This Midrash is now practically lost except for some sections found in the Tanchuma. The particular Midrash Ramban mentions here is found in the Aruch, under the root mattator. we find: “And Balak heard that Balaam came for Balaam sent his mattatron before him.” And it is furthermore written there:, which mentions it in the name of the Yelamdeinu. “Behold, I have begun to deliver up Sihon and his land before thee. Do not let it worry you. I am your mattatron. And be not surprised at this for I am even to be the mattatron before an uncircumcised person, i.e., before Cyrus [king of Persia], as it is said, I will go before thee. Before a woman — Deborah and Barak — I will lead on the way, as it is said, Is not the Eternal gone out before thee.” [We find this word mattatron] also in many other places. I have also heard that in the Greek language, a messenger is called mattator. And [finally] the Rabbis interpreted [in the Midrash mentioned at the beginning of this discussion]: “I am the Eternal — I am He, and no other,” meaning that He is one, and there is no other god beside Him to protest against His act. This is the purport of this Midrash.

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.. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 330, for a detailed explanation of how the principle discussed is derived from the language of the verse. This teaches that neither you nor your fellow-Israelite shall do any work [on the Sabbath], but the non-Israelite may do his own work. These are the words of Rabbi Yashiya. Rabbi Yonathan says that there is no need for this proof. Has it not already been said, Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work? 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 work applies only to doing our work, but one may tell him to do his own work and he may do it. So did Rashi explain it in the Gemara of [Tractate] Baba Metzia. There in the Mechilta it further says: “I know only that work which can be regarded as labor is prohibited. Whence do we learn that activities which are prohibited by Rabbinical enactment [are also forbidden]? Scripture therefore says, And ye shall observe this day, including all activities prohibited by Rabbinical law.” Now Beraithoth like these, [if not accompanied by a proper interpretation], may lead one into a mistaken opinion and should not be quoted literally, for this Beraitha too apparently is a mere asmachta, and I have a correct interpretation thereof. I will yet discuss it, with the help of G-d. (Leviticus 23:24). Ramban’s interpretation there of this topic has been called by the Ritba (see Vol. I, Preface, x), “a gem which has come down to us from the teachings of our master Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman.”
SAVE THAT WHICH MAY BE EATEN BY EVERY BEING, [THAT ONLY MAY BE DONE FOR YOU]. “Even [the food eaten] by cattle [may be prepared on the Festival-day]. One might think that [food may be prepared] for non-Israelites too. Scripture therefore states, for you: [you are permitted to prepare food only for that which belongs to you and for which you have the responsibility of feeding].” Thus the language of Rashi. This too is not in accordance with the final decision of the law. Rather, [the word lachem (for you) signifies]: for you and not for non-Israelites, for you and not for cattle.

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,”, “an equal expression.” Where a verbal congruity appears between two laws in the text of the Torah, it indicates that a law mentioned in one case applies equally to the other. In the case before us, the word s’or (leaven) appears here in Verse 19 where “home” is mentioned, and is also mentioned further, 13:7, where the border is mentioned. Now in the case of the border, the Torah clearly stated that the prohibition applies only where it actually belongs to the owner. On the strength of the gzeirah shavah, the same law applies to the case of the home. The gzeirah shavah is one of the thirteen rules by which the Torah is interpreted. One cannot establish, though, an analogy from congruent expressions of one’s own accord; the application of the similarity of expression must be authorized by tradition. as is explained at the beginning of Tractate Pesachim. 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 though the Israelite may destroy it, he could not do so because he does not have complete control over it. [Also] excluded [from this prohibition] is the leavened bread of a non-Israelite which is deposited with an Israelite, and [an Israelite’s] leavened bread buried under debris, for although it is under the control of the Israelite [or in his territory], he has not the right to destroy it, [or in the case of debris, he does not have the physical ability of actually destroying it], etc.” The explanation of this Mechilta is as follows: One might have thought that the intent of the verse, Neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy borders, is to prohibit the leaving of our leavened bread in all our borders, even in the house of a non-Israelite. Therefore the Torah wrote in your homes to exclude [from this prohibition] the house of a non-Israelite. Thus we learn from this Beraitha that by law of the Torah we are admonished only against keeping our leavened bread under our control, whether it be in our homes or in our borders. But if we have deposited it with a non-Israelite in his home, we do not transgress [the two prohibitions], Neither shall there be leaven seen with thee, and There shall no leaven be found in your homes. And it must necessarily be so. If you do not say thus, then it should follow that for his own leavened bread, an Israelite will transgress the commandments even if he deposited it with a non-Israelite who is beyond the sea, while for a non-Israelite’s leavened bread, even though it be in the Israelite’s home, the Israelite does not violate the prohibitions. If that is the case, why does Scripture say [in one place], in your homes, and in another, in thy borders, when there is no difference between our homes and our borders and the homes and borders of the non-Israelites! Instead, we must conclude that by law of the Torah, we are admonished [against keeping and seeing leaven or leavened bread] only when it is in our control. But by enactment of the Sofrim, [the Rabbis of the pre-tannaitic period beginning with Ezra], we are obligated to destroy our leavened bread under all circumstances. Accordingly, the Rabbis have said in the Gemara: “If the Israelite singled out a room [to the non-Israelite and said to him, ‘This corner is for you to keep your leavened bread’], the Israelite does not violate [the prohibitions against keeping or seeing leavened bread in his possession].” This teaches us that for a non-Israelite’s leavened bread for which the Israelite has accepted responsibility, even though it be deemed as belonging to the Israelite, it is forbidden only when it is under the control of the Israelite, but if it be under the control of the non-Israelite, it is permissible. [In this case where the Israelite singled out a room for him to keep his leavened bread, “it is as if the Israelite assumed responsibility for the non-Israelite’s leavened bread which is in the non-Israelite’s home”], and even by law of the Rabbis, nothing was decreed against it. The Rabbi [Rashi], however, is not of this opinion in his commentary on the Gemara Pesachim. It is this principle which is the purport of the Beraitha we have cited: “Thus there is excluded [from this prohibition] leavened bread owned by a non-Israelite which is deposited with an Israelite.” [It is excluded] on account of the analogy between the homes and the borders:, as explained above. just as in the case of the borders it is permissible because it says with thee, meaning, “you may not see [leaven or leavened bread] which is yours, but you may see that of others and that which belongs to the Temple-treasury,” so too in the case of the home it is also permissible. Excluded also is the case of an Israelite’s leavened bread buried under great debris where it is impossible for him to clear away the ruin, and it is lost to him and everyone. It is permissible since it is no longer called “his.”

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]. in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Maimonides and other scholars have all accepted the decision of Rabbi Eliezer. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 333.

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], etc.” said to the whole congregation of Israel, “Draw out the sheep from the flock to your homes, and keep it there from the tenth day of the month [till the fourteenth, when it is to be slaughtered as the Passover-offering].” It is possible that Scripture used the word, mishchu (draw out), because their sheep were very far from them in the land of Goshen, for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians. 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. (the elders), “and zakein denotes only one who has acquired wisdom” (Kiddushin 32 b). See Ramban above, Verse 2, that “elders” are needed for the Sanctification of the New Moon, as mentioned in the section above, and hence Moses constituted them a court. And he said unto them. The word came from the mouth of Moses, saying it to all Israel., etc. These are the words of Rabbi Yashiya. Rabbi Yonathan says that the word came out from the mouth of Moses saying it to the elders, and the elders saying it to all Israel.” Thus according to Rabbi Yashiya, the expression, Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, means that he told them to gather together to him all the people, [and he himself told the people all the laws of the Passover mentioned above], as I have explained. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yonathan, the elders related it to the assembly. Accordingly, the verse stating, Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, 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,” (Numbers 19:6) it means a bunch of cedar-wood and hyssop tied with scarlet (Parah 3:10). and that all “taking” of the blood [prescribed in the Torah] must be in a vessel, (Leviticus 4:5), it means of the blood that is in the vessel. as our Rabbis have explained. [Moses] put it in basins (further, 24:6). And He further explained to them in this section, and none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning, for on account of it they were commanded to put the blood [of the Passover-offering] upon the lintel so that they would be protected there, just as He said, and there shall be no plague upon you to destroy you. Now Rashi commented: “And none of you shall go out. This teaches us that once permission is given to the destroying angel, he does not discriminate between righteous and wicked, and night-time is the domain of the destroying messengers, as it is said, Thou makest darkness, and it is night, wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth.” I did not understand that which Rashi said, “and night-time is the domain of the destroying messengers, as it is said, … wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth.” Is a person forbidden on any night to go out of the door of his house until the morning, on the authority of this verse? Rather, Rashi should have said, “for on that night permission to destroy was given the angel of destruction, and therefore He warned them against it.” But the Rabbi [Rashi] did not find it correct to say so since the Holy One, blessed be He, in His Presence and in His glory, was the One who smote [the first-born]. This subject is taught in the Mechilta in another version: “And none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning. This teaches us that once permission is given to the destroying angel, he does not discriminate between righteous and wicked, as it is said, Come My people, enter into thy chambers … until the indignation be overpast. And it also says, Behold, I am against thee, and will draw forth My sword out of its sheath, and will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked. And it further says, And it shall come to pass, while My glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock. This is to teach you. This is to teach you….” that you are to come into a place only in the daytime (Genesis 1:4). and leave it only in the daytime. (Genesis 1:4). And thus you find that the patriarchs and the prophets observed this as a custom, as it is said: And Abraham rose early in the morning;, 22:3. And Jacob rose up early in the morning;, 28:18. And Moses rose up early in the morning; And Joshua rose up in the morning; And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning. Now is it not a kal vachomer: If the patriarchs and the prophets, who went to carry out the will of Him by Whose word the world came into being, observed this as a custom, how much more should all other people observe it! And thus it says, Thou makest darkness, and it is night; The young lions roar after their prey; Thou givest it unto them, they gather it;, Verse 28. The sun ariseth, they slink away., Verse 22. From then on, Man goeth forth unto his work, and to his labor until the evening.”, Verse 23. Thus far extends [the quotation from] the Beraitha. The purport thereof is to state that Scripture warned the Israelites in Egypt not to go out of the door of their homes on that night because the Holy One, blessed be He, was passing through Egypt like a king who passes from one place to another and whose guardsmen go before him so that people should neither meet him nor see him. This is similar to that which is said, And the Eternal my G-d shall come, and all the holy ones with Thee; and also, And it shall come to pass, while My glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, i.e., to protect him [Moses] from the seraphim and the heavenly agencies. And since we find that once permission is given to the destroying angel he does not discriminate between righteous and wicked, therefore a person has no right to change from the customary way of the world and leave at night-time, since it is the time of the wild beasts when they go out for prey, and there is no way [for them] to distinguish between righteous and wicked.

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 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. as an ordinance forever, when it applied only to the Passover of Egypt? Hence we must say that the expression, this thing, refers to the Passover-offering itself, mentioned above in Verse 21, which we are commanded to observe forever, i.e., whenever the Sanctuary is in existence. Verse 11, which states, And thus shall ye eat it: with your loins girded, etc., also applied only to the Passover of Egypt (Pesachim 96 a). Similarly, the expression, and ye shall keep this service, 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 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.

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 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:, 128. See above, Note 209, on the word “Sifre.” “Had they not gone forth out of Egypt only at daytime, as it is said, On the morrow after the Passover the children of Israel went out? [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, was translated by Onkelos thus: “The Eternal thy G-d brought thee forth out of Egypt and did miracles for you at night.” that the miracles which were done for the Israelites on that night make it proper to say that on that night G-d “brought thee forth,” because on account of these miracles, they went forth from Egypt.
RISE UP, GET YOU FORTH FROM AMONG MY PEOPLE. The intent thereof is that it was a royal command that they go forth at once, “for I will not give you permission to tarry among my people at all, since they are being killed on account of you.”
BOTH YE — [i.e., Moses and Aaron], who do the smiting, the men; and the children of Israel, the little ones.” — AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. “All of you go out, and do not tarry here under any circumstance.” This was to fulfill what G-d had said to Moses, He shall surely thrust you hence.
AND GO SERVE THE ETERNAL, AS YE HAVE SAID. Pharaoh said this by way of conciliation so that they would be willing to go forth and listen to him, “since you have been wanting to go to the desert to serve the Eternal.”

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.

AND THEY BAKED UNLEAVENED CAKES OF THE DOUGH. The meaning thereof is that they baked unleavened bread of the dough because of the precept which they were commanded: There shall be no leaven found in your homes, for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel.
BECAUSE THEY WERE THRUST OUT OF EGYPT. The sense of it is that they baked the dough on the road because they had been driven out of Egypt, and could not wait to bake it in the city and carry the unleavened bread. Therefore they carried the dough, and their kneading-troughs were bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders, and they hurried and baked it before it was leavened on the road, or in Succoth, where they arrived in a short while as our Rabbis have said.

NOW THE TIME THAT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DWELT IN EGYPT WAS FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS. “From the birth of Isaac till now there were four hundred years. [We must reckon from that event, for only] from the time that Abraham had a child [from Sarah] could the prophecy, that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs,. be fulfilled. And there had been thirty years since that decree made at the ‘covenant between the parts’, Verse 18. until the birth of Isaac. And when you will reckon the four hundred years from the birth of Isaac, you will find that from the time they came into Egypt, until the time they left, it was two hundred and ten years.” Thus the language of Rashi, and it is also the opinion of our Rabbis.. This means [that the four-hundred year period will begin] from the time seed will be seen by you.” The explanation, however, is not correct in every detail. It is written, And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran, and the event of the “covenant between the parts”, Verse 18. took place a long time after that. We must therefore explain the case satisfactorily in accordance with what we have been taught in the Seder Olam: “Our father Abraham was seventy years old when G-d spoke to him at the ‘covenant between the parts,’ as it is said, And it came to pass at the end of four hundred and thirty years … that all the hosts of the Eternal went out from the land of Egypt. Then he returned to Haran and stayed there five years, as it is said, And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.” The sense of the verse then is to state that when Abraham finally left Haran, his native land, never to return again to his father’s house, he was seventy-five years old. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, it is my opinion that G-d said to Abraham, “Know of a surety that before I give you this land, thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs for a long time — four hundred years.” He did not care to mention the additional thirty years to him [i.e., Abraham], because He told him further on, And in the fourth generation they shall come back hither, thereby informing him that they will not come back immediately at the end of four hundred years until the fourth generation when the sin of the Amorite will be full. Thus He alluded to these thirty years, for the Israelites’ staying in the desert for forty years was not on account of the sin of the Amorite not yet being full, [since the four hundred and thirty years were completed at the time of the exodus; their stay in the desert was on account of their own misdeeds]. Accordingly, the purport of the verse [before us] is as follows: Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was until four hundred and thirty years, since they lived there in order to fulfill the period of time set [for Abraham’s seed] to live in a land that is not theirs. Thus Scripture informed us that now when they went forth from Egypt, the exile decreed upon them was completed. He brought them forth from servitude to [complete] freedom, and it was not that He took them out from Egypt and they were yet to be strangers in a land not their own. Now because He has already mentioned this matter and informed us thereof [in the section of the “covenant between the parts”], there was no need to prolong it [here], for this verse [here] is intended only to inform us of the thirty years that were added to [the four hundred years mentioned specifically to Abraham]. This is why He says it briefly, i.e., that in Egypt were completed the four hundred years mentioned to their father Abraham and known to them, and an additional thirty years. Then He reverts and says, And it came to pass at the end of four hundred and thirty years of their exile, they went out from the land of Egypt to perpetual freedom. A similar case is the verse, And the days in which we came from Kadesh — barnea, until we were come over the brook Zered were thirty and eight years. This is to complete the reckoning. The journey from Kadesh–barnea to the brook Zered did not take thirty-eight years. Instead, they abode in Kadesh many years,, 1:46. and then they journeyed from there and turned back by the way to the Red Sea,, 2:1. and in the thirty-eighth year they went over the brook Zered. The purport of the verse is thus: and the days in which we came from Kadesh-barnea, until we were come over the brook Zered were until thirty and eight years had passed. Similarly: Happy is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days means [happy is he who waits and reaches] the end of those days, not the days themselves.

IT WAS A NIGHT OF WATCHING UNTO THE ETERNAL FOR BRINGING THEM OUT FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT. The verse is stating that from the time He decreed the exile upon them, He observed the matter that He bring them out on that night once the end had come, for I will hasten it in its time. It may be that the verse, It was a night of watching unto the Eternal, means that He was watching and looking forward to the night when He would bring them out from the land of Egypt, for the Holy One, blessed be He, looked forward to the time when they would merit to be brought out therefrom. Now if we are to say [as Rashi did, quoted in the commentary on Verse 40], that the [period referred to in] the verse, that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs,. begins from the time that Abraham had seed, and that the reckoning [of the four hundred and thirty years] begins from the birth of Isaac, you will find that they stayed in Egypt two hundred and forty years, according to the explanation we mentioned., 47:9). We thus have one hundred and ninety years since the birth of Isaac. Deduct them from the sum of four hundred and thirty, and you have two hundred and forty years remaining for the stay in Egypt. But this too in my opinion is not correct according to the plain meaning of Scripture, since all the days of Abraham cannot be counted as exile with respect to his seed. The correct interpretation is that He was saying to Abraham “that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs … four hundred years. from this day on.” The purport thereof was to tell him: “your children will not immediately inherit this land which I give them, but instead they will be strangers like you were, in a land not theirs [for a period of] four hundred years and more. They will not return here till the fourth generation when four hundred and thirty years will be completed.” But if so, then their stay in Egypt lasted about two hundred and twenty years or thereabouts. Now if the numerical value of the word ‘r’du’ (get you down) thither, (go you), but r’du (get you down), because the numerical value of the word r’du is two hundred and ten. There was thus an allusion here to the time the Israelites would stay in Egypt. [which is two hundred and ten], be an established tradition in Israel, it is possible that [Jacob, by using the word r’du], alluded to those who arrived in Egypt that after Jacob’s death they would stay there two hundred and ten years. With the seventeen years that Jacob lived in the land of Egypt, their stay altogether totalled two hundred and twenty-seven years. And I have already mentioned, 15:13 (in Vol. I, Seder Lech Lecha, p. 203). the explanation of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra that the expression, that thy seed shall be a stranger, means “in servitude and affliction until the end of a four-hundred year period commencing from this day of the covenant.” And Ibn Ezra further said that the thirty additional years [mentioned here in Verses 40-41] represent the time that elapsed between Abraham’s departure from his country [and the day of the covenant]. Accordingly, the explanation of the verse here is as follows: “Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt until the end of the period when they and their ancestors were strangers in a land not theirs, was four hundred and thirty years.” I maintain further that the most lucid explanation of all is that we say that the decree of the four-hundred year period, [as mentioned in Genesis 15:13], is to be reckoned from that day [of the “covenant between the parts],” as we have mentioned, and these thirty additional years — [in Verses 40-41 here] — were due to the sin of that generation. If exile and affliction are decreed upon a person for a year or two because of his sin and he will fully continue to add to his transgressions, exile and visitation of seven times the original magnitude will be his lot; his first punishment is no guarantee against his being punished for the additional sin he committed. Now it had been decreed upon Abraham that his children would be strangers in a land not their own [for a period of] four hundred years, and that they will not return until the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full. Abraham was given no assurance [concerning the precise ending of the exile], except in the promise, And afterward they will come out with great substance, and that [“afterward”] could be immediately [after the four-hundred year period] or some subsequent time. Even that promise was given conditionally, as He said, And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they come out with great substance, meaning that He will bring them to judgment to determine whether they did to Israel in accordance with their deeds and as was decreed upon them. Besides, no assurance is immune to annulment because of subsequent sin unless it is accompanied by an oath. And it is a known fact that the Israelites in Egypt were wicked and exceeding sinners, having also done away with circumcision, as it is written, And they rebelled against Me, and would not hearken unto Me; they did not every man cast away the detestable things of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt; then I said I would pour out My fury upon them in the midst of the land of Egypt. Again it says, And put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River, and in Egypt, and serve ye the Eternal. It was for this reason that He prolonged their exile for thirty years. In fact, it should have been prolonged even more, but on account of their cries and many prayers, [it was shortened to thirty years]. This is the sense of the verses: And the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto G-d; And G-d heard their groaning,, Verse 24. And now, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto Me., 3:9. And it further states, And we cried unto the Eternal, the G-d of our fathers, and the Eternal heard our voice, and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression, since they did not deserve to be redeemed on account of the end [of the four-hundred year period], but only because He accepted their cry and their groaning on account of the great agony they were in, as I have explained in Seder V’eileh Shemoth. Why should the earlier scholars — [i.e., Rashi and Ibn Ezra] — find it difficult to explain that their exile was prolonged after the end [of the four-hundred year period] by thirty years, when on account of the sin of the spies their stay in the wilderness was later prolonged forty years! Those forty years were indeed an affliction to them, as Scripture states, And thou shalt remember all the way which the Eternal thy G-d hath led thee these forty years in the wilderness, that He might afflict thee. And it further says, And He afflicted thee, and suffered thee to hunger., Verse 4. Thus they were subject [in the wilderness] to complete exile in a land given over to serpents, fiery serpents, and scorpions,, Verse 15. and the promise, And in the fourth generation they shall come back hither, was not fulfilled in them, since during those forty years, that generation surely passed away after the [fifth] generation was already born. Thus the sins caused all delays. It is possible that this [delay of the thirty years] was on account of the children of Ephraim who went out [from the land of Egypt] thirty years before the coming of Moses our teacher, and as our Rabbis have mentioned. They reckoned [the end of the four-hundred year period from the time it was declared to Abraham], and they made no error, but his own iniquities shall ensnare the wicked. And may the Holy One, blessed be He, forgive us all sin and error.
THIS SAME NIGHT IS A NIGHT OF WATCHING UNTO THE ETERNAL FOR ALL THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL THROUGHOUT THEIR GENERATIONS. The intent of this is “that this night set aside by G-d to bring Israel out of Egypt is unto the Eternal. That is to say, it is to be sanctified to His Name. [It is] a night of watching for all the children of Israel throughout their generations, meaning that they are to observe it by worshipping Him through the eating of the Passover-offering, the remembering of the miracles, and the reciting of praise and thanksgiving to His Name,” just as He said, And thou shalt keep this ordinance. (and thou shalt keep) is of the same root as shimurim (watching) here. And He further said, Observe the month of Aviv, and keep the Passover. (observe) is of the same root as shimurim in the verse before us. It thus proves that leil shimurim (a night of watching) means “a night of observance of the Passover service.” Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained that the intent of the expression, It was a night of watching unto the Eternal, is that G-d watched the Israelites and did not suffer the destroyer to come into their homes. This is not correct, since Scripture continues to state, It was a night of watching… for bringing them out from the land of Egypt.

AND THE ETERNAL SAID UNTO MOSES AND AARON: THIS IS THE ORDINANCE OF THE PASSOVER. “This chapter was related to them on the fourteenth day of Nisan.” Thus the language of Rashi. This is correct, since at the end of this chapter it is written, Thus did all the children of Israel, as the Eternal hath commanded, attesting concerning them that they and their servants were circumcised, [as this is a prerequisite for eating the Passover-offering]. But if so, Scripture should have logically mentioned this chapter before the section, And it came to pass at midnight. But the reason [the section of the ordinance of the Passover is placed here] is as follows: The chapter of This month shall be unto you the beginning of months, Verse 2. was said on the first of the month. Immediately on that day, Moses fulfilled his mission, [as it states], Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, meaning that he commanded them concerning the ordinance of the Passover [mentioned here], and he assured them that they will be redeemed on the night of the fifteenth day [of Nisan]. They believed, and the people bowed the head and worshipped., Verse 27. To this account Scripture adjoined the section, And it came to pass at midnight, in order to state that He fulfilled the promise He made to them. On finishing this section, Scripture then reverts to the first theme in order to complete the ordinance of the Passover. This chapter adds many commandments [concerning the Passover-offering]: the prohibitions of an alien or an uncircumcised Israelite eating thereof, the prohibitions of removing the flesh thereof from where it is eaten and of breaking any of its bones, and the law of the Passover-offering of a proselyte. These commandments applied immediately and for all generations. Then Scripture completed the section by saying that the children of Israel did all this; as G-d commanded… so did they. It uses the expression, all the children of Israel, in order to explain that there was not one person who transgressed the command of G-d concerning all these matters [mentioned here in the section beginning, This is the ordinance of the Passover], as well as all He commanded regarding the laws of the Passover mentioned in the sections above. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that this chapter dealing with the Passover of the generations, [as distinguished from the Passover of Egypt], was said after the Passover of Egypt, and the verse, Thus did all the children of Israel, refers to the Passover in the wilderness, which they observed in the second year after the exodus. [Although it should logically precede the Passover in the wilderness, according to Ibn Ezra] it is written here because of the general commandment [on the Passover here], the case being similar [to that of the jar of manna which Aaron was to put up before the Testimony in the Tabernacle, of which Scripture says], And Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, for a charge. [This account should logically follow that of the building of the Tabernacle, but instead it was mentioned in the chapter dealing with the manna in order to complete the subject.] This opinion [of Ibn Ezra here] is a mistake. The commandments in all these chapters deal only with the Passover of Egypt and the Passovers which they were to observe in the Land of Israel, as it is said above, And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the Land, etc. The Passover in the wilderness, however, was a commandment only for that particular time.
THERE SHALL NO ‘BEN NEICHAR’ (ALIEN) EAT THEREOF. “This means one whose actions are estranged from his Heavenly Father, and applies both to a non-Israelite and an Israelite.” Thus the language of Rashi quoting from the Mechilta. The verse of course is needed only for the case of an [apostate] Israelite. And so did Onkelos translate: “There shall no ‘ben neichar’ eat thereof, i.e, any Israelite who has become an apostate,” meaning he has estranged himself from his brethren and from his Heavenly Father through his evil deeds. This is the word neichar, mentioned by the Sages in all places, which means estranged, and the purport thereof is m’shumad, one who is a known [opponent to the Torah]. The usage of the word is similar to the Aramaic expression, ‘ve’isht’moda’ (And) Joseph (knew) his brethren, but they ‘isht’modei’ (knew) him not. In the case of the word m’shumad, it is missing the letter ayin, just as it is absorbed in many [Aramaic] words: midam (anything) in place of mida’am; dor kati in place of dor katia (a chopped generation), baki in place of b’kia (expert).

TOSHAV’ (A SOJOURNER) ‘V’SACHIR’ (AND A HIRED SERVANT) SHALL NOT EAT THEREOF. “Toshav is a resident non-Israelite [who has foresworn idolatry, but has not as yet been fully converted to Judaism]. A ‘sachir’ is a non-Israelite. But why should Scripture mention all these? They are uncircumcised, [and an uncircumcised person may not eat of the Passover-offering]! However, it refers to a circumcised Arabian or a circumcised Gibeonite.”” (Mechilta here). Thus the language of Rashi. I do not know why the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote down matters which are rejected in the Gemara. The Rabbis have objected to this explanation [that the verse refers to a circumcised Arabian or a circumcised Gibeonite], asking: “Are these considered circumcised?! Have we not been taught that he who vows not to have benefit from the uncircumcised is permitted to have benefit from the uncircumcised of Israel, but not from the circumcised of other nations, as it is written, For all the nations are uncircumcised, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart?” Instead, the Rabbis [there in the Gemara] explained the verse as referring to a proselyte who was circumcised but who has not yet undergone immersion.

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