Purpose of the Pesach/2

Purpose of the Pesach

Exegetical Approaches

THIS TOPIC IS CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS!

Apotropaic Blood Rite

The Pesach was commanded so that its blood would prevent the destroyer ("הַמַּשְׁחִית") from entering the Israelites' homes and harming them.

Sources: JubileesChapter 49About Jubilees, Shemot Rabbah18:7About Shemot Rabbah, Ibn EzraShemot Long Commentary 4:25Shemot Long Commentary 12:7Shemot Long Commentary 12:13Shemot Long Commentary 12:27Shemot Short Commentary 12:7Shemot Short Commentary 12:11Shemot Short Commentary 12:13About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 12:7Shemot 12:13Shemot 12:14Shemot 12:22Cited in Moshav Zekeinim Shemot 12:12About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, R. Avraham Ibn DaudSefer HaEmunah HaRamah, Maamar 3, SefornoShemot 12:12-13Shemot 12:22-27About R. Ovadyah Seforno

Focal point of the commandment – This position views the smearing of the blood and its concomitant protection as the raison d'être for the entire process of the Pesach.

Nature of the "מַשְׁחִית" – All commentators who take this approach agree that the "destroyer" was a separate entity (distinct from Hashem)¹ who, sans the sign of the blood, would have been incapable of distinguishing between the Israelites and Egyptians. However, these exegetes disagree regarding the exact identity and nature of the "מַשְׁחִית":

• Angel² – According to Jubilees, Ibn Ezra, and R"Y Bekhor Shor, the "מַשְׁחִית" was a Divine messenger who received instructions from Hashem to destroy the Egyptians and spare the Israelites.³
• Celestial force – Ibn Daud, in contrast, asserts that the phrase refers to the powers of a heavenly sphere⁴ which were unleashed against the Egyptians. According to him, this force functioned in accordance with fixed natural laws.
• Plague – Seforno understands the "מַשְׁחִית" to be a general epidemic which wreaked havoc upon the general population of Egypt. This plague coincided with, but was distinct from, the Plague of the Firstborn.⁵

The roles of Hashem and the "מַשְׁחִית" during the Plague of the Firstborn

• The "מַשְׁחִית", rather than Hashem, did both the killing ("נֶגֶף לְמַשְׁחִית") and sparing ("וּפָסַח") – Jubilees.⁶ According to this reading, Hashem merely gave the original instructions but did not accompany the "מַשְׁחִית" for the implementation, and all of the verbs which speak of Hashem's actions ("וְעָבַרְתִּי"‎, "וְהִכֵּיתִי"‎, "וְרָאִיתִי"‎, "וּפָסַחְתִּי"‎, "בְּהַכֹּתִי"‎, "‏וְעָבַר ה'‏",‎ "וְרָאָה"‎, "וּפָסַח"‎, "וְלֹא יִתֵּן") really refer to the actions of the "מַשְׁחִית" (functioning as Hashem's agent)‎.⁷ Jubilees does not feel obligated by the later homily in the Mekhilta of "‏אני ולא מלאך...‏".
• Hashem protected the Israelites while the "מַשְׁחִית" slew the Egyptians – Shemot Rabbah. The Midrash presents Hashem as physically preventing the destroying angel from entering the Israelite homes. This reading accounts for both "וְרָאִיתִי אֶת הַדָּם וּפָסַחְתִּי עֲלֵכֶם" and "וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָכֶם נֶגֶף לְמַשְׁחִית", but it does not explain why Hashem did not simply order the angel not to enter the blood-marked houses.
• Hashem performed both the saving and the killing, and the "מַשְׁחִית" merely accompanied Him – Seforno.⁸ Seforno completely divides between the roles of Hashem and the "מַשְׁחִית", asserting that Hashem alone killed the firstborns ("וְהִכֵּיתִי כָל בְּכוֹר"), while a more general plague ("נֶגֶף לְמַשְׁחִית") was simultaneously brought upon the rest of the Egyptian nation.⁹ Seforno's position is undoubtedly also influenced by the Mekhilta's homily which attributes the final plague to Hashem alone, and it has the added advantage of explaining why every home, even ones in which there was no firstborn, required the smearing of blood.

Function of the blood and analogous cases

• Identification sign – Perhaps the simplest understanding is that the "מַשְׁחִית" was simply incapable of distinguishing on its own between Egyptian and Israelite,¹⁰ and thus the blood was needed to serve this function. Ibn Ezra and Seforno¹¹ note the parallel between our story and Yechezkel 9,¹² where there is a similar marking of innocents in order to protect them from a "מַשְׁחִית".‎¹³
• Repellent – Ibn Daud,¹⁴ in contrast, asserts that the blood (and slaughtered sheep) had some intrinsic powers to ward off the harm of the "מַשְׁחִית", deterring him from entering the Israelite homes. Both Ibn Daud and Ibn Ezra compare our episode to the story of Moshe in the lodging place in Shemot 4. There, too, a bloody rite (circumcision) was used to ward off evil and potential death.¹⁵

Meaning of the verb פסח

• Have mercy / protect¹⁶ – Shemot Rabbah and one opinion in Ibn Ezra. According to them, Hashem is the subject of the verb.¹⁷
• Pass over¹⁸ – Jubilees, Ibn Ezra in the name of R. Saadia, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and Seforno. They attribute the action to the "מַשְׁחִית".‎¹⁹

Inner or outer doorpost? – Most of these commentators do not address the question. Ibn Daud simply writes that the blood was smeared on the gates. Ibn Ezra, in contrast, stresses that it was not put on the gates of the courtyards,²⁰ but rather on the openings of the home, as it served to ransom the household.

"לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ" – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Ibn Daud, and Seforno, the command not to leave the house was essential for the people's survival; only those that were behind the protection of the blood smeared doorposts would be saved.

Accompanying actions – Some of these commands may also be related to the purpose of protection:

• No broken bones – Jubilees suggests that the command to roast the Pesach whole and not to break any of its bones was symbolic of the nation emerging whole and unscathed from the Plague of the Firstborn.
• Haste – Ibn Ezra understands the commands relating to haste, not as a way of insuring the nation would be ready to leave at a moment's notice, but as a directive to finish eating by the time the destroying angel arrived, lest they not be granted protection.

"לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים" – Ibn Ezra explains that this refers to Hashem's protection of the Israelites from the "מַשְׁחִית".‎²¹

פסח דורות – Jubilees posits that the annual celebration of Pesach, like the original ceremony, was also instituted for the purpose of protection,²² so that no plague should visit the nation throughout the year.²³ In contrast, R"Y Bekhor Shor states that while the original Pesach was needed for protection, the annual ritual was only for the purposes of commemoration "לְזִכָּרוֹן".

Israelites' religious identity – This approach does not take a particular position on the nation's religious observance or beliefs.

Sacrifice to Hashem

The Pesach strengthened the bond between the Children of Israel and Hashem, in preparation for the Exodus.

Meriting Redemption

The Israelites needed to accumulate mitzvot in order to atone and compensate for their sinful behavior in Egypt and be worthy of Hashem's deliverance.²⁴

Sources: R. Matya b. Charash in MekhiltaMekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Bo Pischa 5About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, R. Yishmael in MekhiltaMekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Bo Pischa 11 s.v. "וראה"About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, RashiShemot 12:6About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, AvudrahamCommentary on Haggadah s.v. "Lo al yedei malakh", Tzeror HaMorShemot 12:3About R. Avraham Saba, R. S"R HirschShemot 12:3-8Shemot 12:11Shemot 12:24About R. S"R Hirsch, R. D"Z HoffmannShemot 12:12-13About R. D"Z Hoffmann,²⁵ U. CassutoShemot 12:5About U. Cassuto

Focal point of the commandment – Following Hashem's instructions for the entire process, from the selection of the animal through the eating of the sacrifice, was important for the nation's religious development.

Character of the sacrifice

• Sin offering – The Tzeror HaMor suggests that the sacrifice came to atone.²⁶ He then enumerates many of the elements common to the Pesach and general sacrifices, including the slaughtering of an unblemished animal, smearing/sprinkling of the blood, and the prohibition and burning of leftovers. He also explains that the absence of the altar was due to the impurity of the land of Egypt.²⁷
• Petitionary offering – R. D"Z Hoffmann posits that the Pesach was brought, in part, as a request for Hashem's protection,²⁸ and the sheep represented the Israelites' dependence on Hashem to be their shepherd.²⁹
• Redemption of the firstborn (פדיון בכור) – Cassuto suggests that the Paschal lambs served as an exchange for the lives of the Israelite firstborns, and their blood symbolized the consecration of the Israelites to God's worship.³⁰

Function of the blood and Biblical parallels – On its most basic level, the smearing of the blood was an outward sign of the fulfillment of the Divine command and a replacement for the sprinkling of sacrificial blood on the altar. However, for some of these commentators it had additional symbolic meaning:

• Covenantal blood – R. Matya b. Charash in the Mekhilta (cited by Rashi) associates it with the blood of circumcision, and says that the phrase "בְּדַם בְּרִיתֵךְ" in Zekhariah 9:11 refers to them.³¹
• Exchange of life – R. Hirsch, R. D"Z Hoffmann and Cassuto all see the blood as standing in for the lives of the nation, either by representing their willingness to dedicate their lives to Hashem,³² or in substituting for the firstborns otherwise destined to die in the plague.³³

Target audience

• ??Hashem and Israel – According to this approach, it would seem that the blood targeted both Hashem and Israel as the blood represented either a sacrificial or covenantal act through which the nation earned their redemption.³⁴
• Outside world – R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that the blood was a sign for the outside world, rather than Hashem Himself, so that they should recognize how Hashem distinguished between Egyptian and Israelite.³⁵

Meaning of the name "פֶּסַח" – The word can mean either "to have mercy"³⁶ or to "pass over."³⁷ Due to the nation's observance of the Pesach, Hashem was willing to be merciful and skip over their homes.

Nature of the "מַשְׁחִית" – According to this approach, the "מַשְׁחִית" refers either to Hashem Himself or His actions, or, alternatively, is an angel acting under His direct instructions:

• Destruction – Avudraham maintains that the term "מַשְׁחִית" does not refer to a separate being but rather to the destruction wrought by Hashem Himself (משחית=השחתה).
• Hashem Himself – R. D"Z Hoffmann (in his first suggestion) proposes that the "מַשְׁחִית" is a personification of God's providence while Tzeror HaMor asserts that it refers to God's attribute of justice specifically.
• Angel – Rashi and R. D"Z Hoffmann raise the alternative possibility that it refers to an angel sent by Hashem to do his bidding.

Accompanying actions –

• Haste – According to R. Hirsch, eating this way served to reflect the atmosphere of worry and imminent danger that the nation was only saved from due to their partaking of the Pesach.
• Dressed to go – According to Karl, as the nation was requesting protection for their journey, it was fitting to partake of the offering while dressed and ready to leave at a moment's notice.
• Twilight – R. D"Z Hoffmann explains that as the sacrifice was a request for salvation, it needed to be offered before the Plague came.

Inner or outer doorpost? –

Biblical parallels –

"לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ" – According to most of these commentators,³⁸ this has nothing to do with the dangers lurking outside due to the plague:

• Tzeror HaMor and Cassuto relate the command to the nation's departure. Tzeror HaMor asserts that Hashem simply did not want the nation to leave in the middle of the night, as if they were running away, but rather to exit in full daylight. Cassuto suggests more simply that Hashem wanted to ensure that they would be available to go at a moment's notice.
• R. D"Z Hoffmann proposes that Hashem warned the nation against leaving their home lest they see God's presence.³⁹

"לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים" –

General purpose of sacrifices –

פסח דורות – R. D"Z Hoffmann says that in future generations the Pesach was purely commemorative in nature, and the petitionary aspect of the original sacrifice was replaced with the element of thanksgiving.

Israelites' religious identity – According to this approach, the nation was lacking in merits and did not deserve their redemption. These commentators do not fixate on the transgression of idolatry in particular, but rather point to a more general lack of good deeds.

–

–

Thanksgiving Offering

The Pesach was a Korban Todah, a celebratory sacrifice thanking Hashem for the nation's impending salvation.

Sources: PhiloOn the Special Laws II:XXVII:145-149Questions and Answers on Exodus #4Questions and Answers on Exodus #7Questions and Answers on Exodus #10Questions and Answers on Exodus #12About Philo, R. Chasdai CrescasDerashat HaPesach (p. 166)About R. Chasdai Crescas, R. D"Z HoffmannShemot 12:12-13About R. D"Z Hoffmann

Target audience – The blood of this sacrifice, like other sacrifices, is sprinkled before Hashem.

Purpose of the blood – The smearing of the blood is simply part of the sacrificial service, the equivalent of the sprinkling of blood that occurs during the bringing of other sacrifices.⁴⁰ In the absence of an altar, the Israelite house took on that function and, thus, the blood was sprinkled on the doorposts.

Meaning of the name "פֶּסַח" – According to this approach, the word can mean either pass over or have mercy. The sacrifice is so called because the people are offering thanksgiving for this action of Hashem.

Nature of the "מַשְׁחִית" – R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that this is either a personification of God's providence, or an angel sent to do His bidding.

Focal point of the commandment – This approach sees the slaughter and sacrificial meal as the central part of the Pesach and thanksgiving celebration. R. Crescas asserts that in slaughtering a sheep, the Israelites show their gratitude that they themselves were not slaughtered.

Accompanying actions –

• Twilight – R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that it was eaten then because the offering was also a request (and not just thanksgiving) for salvation from the Plague of Firstborns and, thus, needed to be offered before the Plague was brought.⁴¹
• Male – Philo proposes that in our show of gratitude we choose a male since Paroh's decrees had been aimed against male children.
• Sheep – R. Crescas suggests that it was fitting to sacrifice the god of the Egyptians to highlight their undoing. The Egyptians expected the destruction of the Israelites but in turn the Israelites were saved while their own nation was defeated.
• Ready to go – It seems that the commands regarding eating the Pesach roasted, with matzah and bitter herbs, while belted and ready to go, have no connection to the thanksgiving aspect of the offering. Philo suggests that most of these details represent haste.⁴²

Inner or outer doorpost? – It is unclear where the blood was spread.

Biblical parallels – To support the idea that the Pesach was a shelamim offering, R. D"Z Hoffmann points to the many parallels between the Pesach and other such sacrifices:

• It is referred to as a זבח, like other offerings that are eaten.
• The choice of animal, its age, the sprinkling or smearing of blood and the laws regarding leftovers being burnt are shared by other sacrifices.
• The missing components, the altar and priest, were here replaced by the house (with the blood being thrown on its doorposts) and the Israelites themselves.⁴³

"לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ" – According to R. D"Z Hoffmann, this serves as a warning lest the people leave their homes and see God's presence as he kills the Egyptian firstborns.⁴⁴

"לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים" –

General purpose of sacrifices –

פסח דורות – Philo maintains that the annual Pesach sacrifice is both a commemoration of the first Pesach and also its own sacrifice of thanksgiving for our redemption from Egypt.

Israelites' religious identity –

–

–

Demonstrative Act Against Idolatry

The Egyptians worshiped sheep, and the slaughtering of the Pesach proclaimed the sovereignty of Hashem and His supremacy over the Egyptian gods. This approach subdivides regarding the intended audience:

Cleansing the Israelites

The Paschal rite facilitated and symbolized the Israelites' rejection of Egyptian idolatry.

Sources: R. Eliezer HaKappar in Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelBo Pischa 5About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, R. Yosi HaGelili in Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelBo Pischa 11About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, R. Eliezer in Mekhilta DeRashbiShemot 12:21About Mekhilta DeRashbi, Shemot Rabbah16:2About Shemot Rabbah, Bemidbar RabbahNaso 13About Bemidbar Rabbah, Seikhel TovShemot 12:6About R. Menachem b. Shelomo, RambamMoreh Nevukhim 3:46About R. Moshe Maimonides, R. BachyaShemot 12:13R. Bachya b. Asher,⁴⁵ RalbagShemot 12:3Shemot 12:7Shemot 12:9Shemot 12:13Shemot 12:22-23Shemot 12 Toelet 3About R. Levi b. Gershon, Akeidat YitzchakShemot #38About R. Yitzchak Arama, AbarbanelShemot 12, Question 4Shemot 12:3-14Shemot 12:14Commentary on Haggadah s.v. "Pesach"About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, R"M AlshikhShemot 12 IntroductionShemot 12:7-9About R. Moshe Alshikh, HaKetav VeHaKabbalahShemot 12:13About R"Y Mecklenburg

Atonement - Though all these sources view the Pesach as a necessary part of the nation's atonement process, they highlight different aspects:

• Active demonstration – Most of the commentators focus on the nation's need to actively demonstrate their rejection of idolatry in order to merit redemption. By slaughtering the Egyptian god the Israelites portrayed their denunciation of Egyptian beliefs.⁴⁶
• Educational tool – Rambam and Ralbag focus less on the demonstrative aspect of the ritual, and view it instead as an educative process. In seeing the Egyptian god killed and unable either to defend itself or wreak punishment, the Israelites learned its worthlessness.
• Sin offering – Bemidbar Rabbah compares the Pesach to a sin offering brought for idolatry, suggesting that the Pesach might have served a similar expiatory function.⁴⁷

Target audience –

• The Israelites – According to Ralbag, Akeidat Yitchak, and Abarbanel, the blood was meant not for Hashem or the destroyer but for the Israelites themselves. It served as a sign and proof for them ("וְהָיָה הַדָּם לָכֶם לְאֹת ") that they had abandoned their beliefs in the Egyptian gods and it was this rejection that led Hashem to have mercy on them and not kill them during the plague.⁴⁸
• The Egyptians – HaKetav VeHaKabbalah,⁴⁹ in contrast, asserts that the Egyptians were the intended audience of the blood. As part of the nation's process of repentance they needed to be willing to risk their lives for Hashem by slaughtering the sheep and putting its blood in full view of their Egyptian neighbors.⁵⁰
• Hashem – Bemidbar Rabbah does not say explicitly for whom the blood was intended but his comparison of the Pesach to a sin offering would suggest that the blood was meant for Hashem.⁵¹

Inner or outer doorpost? – Ralbag, Abarbanel and Akeidat Yitzchak assert that it was placed on the inner doorframe, while HaKatav VaHaKabbalah maintains that it was on the outer doorpost.⁵²

Meaning of the name "פֶּסַח" – Ralbag and HaKetav VeHaKabbalah assert that the word means to have mercy or protect. After seeing the nation's demonstration of belief, Hashem decided to protect them during the plague.⁵³ Abarbanel adds that it can also mean to pass over⁵⁴ and proposes that Hashem skipped over the homes which held a sign of dedication to God.

Nature of the "מַשְׁחִית" – Abarbanel raises two possibilities. It either refers to some foul and fatal air that killed the Egyptians or to the Egyptians themselves who might have tried to enter the Israelite homes and punish them.⁵⁵

Focal point of the commandment – This approach would view the slaughtering of the sheep, the ultimate act of defiance against the Egyptian god, as the focus of the Pesach.

Accompanying actions – Many of the details accompanying the Pesach are understood as ways of teaching the Israelites to reject the Egyptian gods, or alternatively, as displays of dedication to Hashem, despite the dangers inherent in killing their neighbors' god:

• Choice of sheep – As the sheep was worshiped by the Egyptians, its slaughter was necessary to eradicate similar beliefs held by the Children of Israel.
• Four days – This gave the nation ample time both to display their intended slaughtering and to reflect on their new beliefs.
• Hyssop branch – Ralbag suggests that the choice of a lowly plant to do the smearing of blood served to degrade the sheep in the eyes of Israel.
• Whole male – Ralbag suggests that in killing a whole male, which would be seen by the Egyptians as a more respected animal, and nonetheless, emerging unscathed, the nation would learn the worthlessness of the Egyptian god.
• Roasted – Ralbag proposes that since the Egyptians would normally punish any who defied their gods by fire, roasting the sheep was a sign of disrespect and further proved to the nation the inability of the god to punish.
• Matzah and maror – Rambam points out that idolaters would normally accompany their sacrifices with leavened bread and something sweet. As a reaction, Hashem commanded that the nation's sacrifices be accompanied by unleavened bread and salt. This could similarly explain the choice of matzah and bitter herbs.⁵⁶
• Acts of repentance – R"M Alshikh suggests that the details helped the nation undo (or at least show regret for) past sinful actions, "measure for measure." Since the nation had desecrated Hashem's name, they were now forced to sanctify it through the public taking and slaughtering. Where the Israelites had previously bowed down to the sheep, they now slaughtered it while in a similar stance, its head on its bottom parts.

Purpose of the blood – The blood served as a sign of the Israelite denunciation of idolatry.⁵⁷

Biblical parallels – Rambam suggests that many of the laws of sacrifices were similarly aimed at weaning the nation away from idolatry.

"לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ" – According to Ababrbanel this was a safety measure, that the Israelites not come in contact with the distressed Egyptians who might take out their vengeance on them.⁵⁸

"לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים" –

General purpose of sacrifices – According to the Rambam, sacrifices as a whole are a concession to the nation's foibles and a means to gradually pull them away from idolatrous leanings.

פסח דורות – According to this approach, future Pesachs simply commemorate this first one, but do not serve the same demonstrative purpose.

Israelites' religious identity – This approach assumes that the Children of Israel had assimilated in Egypt and embraced idolatry. See Israelites' Religious Identity.

–

–

Mocking the Egyptians

The public slaughter of the sheep proved to the Egyptians that their gods were powerless.

Sources: R. Yitzchak in Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelBo Pischa 6About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Pesikta DeRav KahanaPesikta DeRav Kahana HaChodesh 5:17About Pesikta DeRav Kahana, Shemot Rabbah16:3About Shemot Rabbah, ChizkuniShemot 12:3,5-7Shemot 12:8-11Shemot 12:13About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach,⁵⁹ RambanShemot 12:3About R. Moshe Nachmanides, R. BachyaShemot 12:23R. Bachya b. Asher⁶⁰

Target audience – This approach removes the theological difficulty of God needing a sign by suggesting that the blood was aimed not at Hashem but at the Egyptian passersby.⁶¹

Meaning of the name "פֶּסַח" – Chizkuni and R. Bachya suggest that the word relates to skipping over. It is unclear why the sacrifice should be so called if its main purpose was to mock the Egyptians rather than save the Israelites.

Nature of the "מַשְׁחִית" – Chizkuni views the "מַשְׁחִית" as Hashem's messenger, acting on His orders. The verses which speak of Hashem seeing the blood or doing the killing actually refer to the "מַשְׁחִית" himself, who is referred to by the name of the one who sent him "שהרי שלוחו של השולח כשולח". Ramban, in contrast, emphasizes that it was Hashem Himself who did the killing of the Egyptians and that the "מַשְׁחִית" refers to a different angel who attacks in times of plague.

Focal point of the commandment – This approach would view both the slaughtering and smearing of the blood as central to the ceremony.

Accompanying actions – Chizkuni explains that nearly all the actions relating to the sacrifice were intended both to degrade the Egyptian idols and to publicize that degradation:

• Four days – This provided time for the Egyptians to see their gods tied and bleating, without the ability to save themselves from the coming slaughter.
• Unblemished young male sheep – This would not allow any excuse that could justify the sheep-killing; no one could say that a particular sheep was unworthy due to its being blemished and that was the only reason it was being killed.⁶²
• Twilight – This time was chosen to maximize exposure of the slaughtering to all those who were returning home.
• Whole – This way no one could mistake that what was killed was in fact the Egyptian god.
• Roasted – The roasting ensured that the sheep was both seen and smelled by all.
• Dressed to go, bitter herbs – Choosing a condiment that was bitter rather than sweet and eating in a hurry were both signs of disrespect.

Purpose of the blood – The blood was meant to mock the Egyptians and demonstrate how helpless their gods were.

Inner or outer doorpost? – Since this was a proof to the Egyptians that their gods were powerless, the blood was smeared on the outside, where everyone could see.⁶³

Biblical parallels –

"לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ" – According to Ramban, the nation was prohibited from leaving their homes lest they see God's providence as He attacked the Egyptians.

"לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים" –

General purpose of sacrifices –

פסח דורות – Future sacrifices commemorate the original Pesach and Hashem's skipping over the homes of the Israelites but it has no demonstrative purpose. This works with the understanding that many of the commands that were instituted to mock the Egyptians are not incorporated into future Pesachs.

Israelites' religious identity –

–

–

¹ In 12:23 Moshe appears to tell the Israelites that Hashem will not permit ("וְלֹא יִתֵּן") the "destroyer" to enter their homes. From this it would appear that the "מַשְׁחִית" is distinct from Hashem.

² The identification of the "מַשְׁחִית" as an angel is supported by the term "מַלְאָךְ הַמַּשְׁחִית" which appears in Shemuel II 24:16. See also Bereshit 19:13-14 and Yechezkel 9:6-8 which similarly refer to death or destruction (using the root of שחת) wrought by an angel. The parallel from Yechezkel is particularly significant as there, too, a sign is made to distinguish those deserving to be saved.

³ Jubilees understands the "מַשְׁחִית" to be an entire host of angels, "חילות משטמה" ("the legions of Mastema"). In this case, Jubilees specifies that Mastema's forces were given their marching orders from Hashem and acted in accordance with His wishes. However, see Jubilees for other cases in which Jubilees portrays a dichotomy between the forces of good and evil and presents Mastema as acting independently of Hashem's desires.

⁴ He specifically identifies it with the planet Mars, associated in medieval astrology with war and bloodshed, and with the Zodiac sign of Aries (a ram) and the month of Nisan. See Astrology for discussion of the beliefs of Ibn Daud and others regarding the scientific legitimacy of this discipline.

⁵ While the other commentators identify the "מַשְׁחִית" as the agent which executed the Plague of the Firstborn, Seforno views it as a separate punishment which incorporated the "עֶבְרָה וָזַעַם וְצָרָה מִשְׁלַחַת מַלְאֲכֵי רָעִים" in Tehillim 78:49 which Hashem set upon Egypt. It is noteworthy, however, that this verse appears prior to the Psalmist's description of the Plague of Darkness; cf. Ibn Ezra and Radak (Tehillim 78:49) who interpret this verse to be speaking of the earlier plagues which preceded the final Plague of the Firstborn.

⁶ This is also the position which Ibn Ezra cites in the name of R. Saadia.

⁷ They are nonetheless attributed to Hashem either because the "מַשְׁחִית" was merely a Divine messenger ("שלוחו של השולח כשולח" like Chizkuni's formulation below), or because Hashem is the ultimate cause of all that happens in the world. For other examples, see Angels or Men and Hardened Hearts.

⁸ This is also the position found in the note (הגה"ה) appended to R"Y Bekhor Shor's interpretation of 12:7, however, its provenance is unclear. A somewhat different opinion is cited in the name of R"Y Bekhor Shor by the Moshav Zekeinim. According to both, though, Hashem plays a significant role in the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn, as per the homily in the Mekhilta.

⁹ See also Ma'asei Hashem, Ma'asei Mizrayim 17.

¹⁰ This is the position of Jubilees which asserts that Hashem delegated the execution of the Plague of the Firstborn to the "מַשְׁחִית", and that the description of Hashem "seeing the blood" really refers to the "מַשְׁחִית" (see elaboration above). While this may not be the literal rendering of the verses, it has the advantage of obviating the quandary of why Hashem would need to see the blood.

However, this understanding does not work for Shemot Rabbah and R"Y Bekhor Shor, as they maintain, like the literal interpretation of 12:13,23, that it was Hashem who saw the blood and protected the Israelites, and He clearly did not need the blood to distinguish between nationalities. Thus, Shemot Rabbah offers a parallel to animals which are marked before they are slaughtered. Yet, it is difficult to understand what Hashem's purpose would be in doing something similar. Additionally, the analogy is reversed, as in Egypt, the blood was placed specifically on the houses of those who were not to be harmed.

¹¹ See above that although Seforno maintains that the Plague of the Firstborn was brought by Hashem Himself, he claims that the "מַשְׁחִית" was independently responsible for a separate epidemic. According to Seforno, it was for this accompanying plague that the sign of the blood was necessary, as it was brought by the "מַשְׁחִית" alone.

¹² See also Radak Yechezkel 9:4.

¹³ There, those to be spared are marked on their foreheads, and the destroying messengers are told not to approach them.

¹⁴ Ibn Ezra also alludes to this notion in his commentary on Shemot 4.

¹⁵ Cf. the similar explanation of Lekach Tov there and Ibn Kaspi who suggests that this was an erroneous, but commonly held belief. For elaboration, see Murder Mystery at the Malon. One might view the King of Edom's sacrifice of his son (Melakhim II 3:26-27) as a similar protective rite, aimed at guarding his nation from further harm in battle. Ibn Daud also points to the priests of the Ba'al cutting themselves in Kings II 18:28, "עַד שְׁפָךְ דָּם עֲלֵיהֶם" as a preventative measure to ward off Eliyahu's killing of them. In context, though, it seems that their actions were rather meant to summon the Ba'al and not to deter bloodshed.

¹⁶ See Yeshayahu 31:5 cited by Ibn Ezra.

¹⁷ Ibn Ezra proposes that the sacrifice is so called due to the Divine protection that it offered.

¹⁸ See Shemuel II 9:13 and Kings I 18:21 cited by Ibn Ezra. R"Y Bekhor Shor suggests that it is related to the root פסע, with the pharyngeals ח and ע being exchanged.

¹⁹ See above that, although the subject of the verb is Hashem, they interpret it to refer to Hashem's agent.

²⁰ He maintains that it was purposely not put on the entrances to the gates of the courtyards, so as not to provoke the Egyptians. He suggests, too, that the darkness of twilight served to further obscure the sign. See below, in contrast, how others suggest that the choice of twilight allowed more exposure to the sign since Egyptians were returning home at that time.

²¹ See Ramban who rejects this option from the continuation of the verse "לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם".

²² Though Jubilees holds that in the annual celebration there was no longer a smearing of blood on the doorposts, it makes a point of saying that the blood would be placed on the altar, thereby connecting the past and future observances.

²³ Cf. A. Shemesh, "פסח זה על שום מה", AJS Review 21:2 (1996): 1-17, who attempts to show how several Tannaitic passages suggest that R. Eliezer, too, saw in the annual Pesach an apotropaic ritual.

²⁴ Only the later sources in this category (beginning with the Tzeror HaMor) explicitly state that the Pesach was a sacrifice. However, it is likely that this is the understanding of the earlier sources as well.

²⁵ R. D"Z Hoffmann combines this possibility with the option that the Pesach was a thanksgiving sacrifice – see below.

²⁶ Cf. Bemidbar Rabbah below.

²⁷ Thus, the house stood in for the altar. It is also possible that each person acted as a priest, and was thus permitted to partake from his own sin offering.

²⁸ Zvi KarlCommentary on Mishnayot Pesachim, pp.12-15, too, views this as a request, but suggests that the nation was asking for protection from the dangers of the upcoming journey.

²⁹ R. Hoffmann here is drawing off R. Hirsch who emphasizes how the nation was to see themselves in the sheep, and be ready to accept Hashem as their shepherd and to dedicate their lives to Him.

³⁰ It is unclear, though, why every individual was obligated to bring the Pesach, instead of just the firstborns.

³¹ See also Shemot 24:8.

³² All three of these commentators suggest this.

³³ This last possibility is found only in Cassuto.

³⁴ This works with the dual phrasing of "וְהָיָה הַדָּם לָכֶם לְאֹת" and "וְרָאִיתִי אֶת הַדָּם". The blood was a sign for the nation that they had earned their redemption. God saw it and decided to spare their lives.

³⁵ He adds that the Children of Israel would thereby also recognize that their salvation was due to their active worship of God and thus it became a sign for them as well.

³⁶ See R. Yishmael in the Mekhilta.

³⁷ See R. Hirsch and RD"Z Hoffmann who prefer this option.

³⁸ Rashi is exceptional and, following the Mekhilta, suggests that once the destroyer was given permission to kill, he would not differentiate between righteous and evil, making it unsafe to be outside.

³⁹ See Ramban below who says the same.

⁴⁰ Such a view of the blood obviates the theological difficulty of Hashem needing a sign. The position does not explain, though, the verses' presentation of the blood as being the reason for God's passing over/protection of the Israelites.

⁴¹ See elaboration above.

⁴² R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that the roasting was to show that the offering had some elements of a קרבן עולה as well. For a larger discussion and many symbolic interpretations of the many details related to the Pesach offering, see Philo's Questions and Answers on Exodus Book I.

⁴³ Both Philo and R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that at this first זבח, all of Israel were equal, demonstrating their potential to be a ממלכת כהנים. Philo adds that this was a necessity since there was as of yet no altar and no Levite or Priestly class.

⁴⁴ See Ramban below.

⁴⁵ R. Bachya sees in the Pesach also a demonstration directed at edifying the Egyptians. See his comments on 12:23 and the discussion below.

⁴⁶ Though one can understand R. Eliezer HaKappar, R. Yosi HaGelili and R. Eliezer in the Mekhilta in this manner, none of the three explicitly mention that the Pesach was aimed at killing the Egyptian god. They simply say that Hashem was telling the nation "משכו ידיכם מע"ז והדבקו במצוה" which could also be understood to mean that Hashem is directing the nation to reject idolatry and busy themselves with doing Hashem's bidding. The mizvah of Pesach then, is not necessarily a rejection of past ways (סור מרע), but could simply be a positive act of loyalty to Hashem (עשה טוב). If one takes this understanding, these positions are very similar to the approach above that focuses on the Pesach being a positive action done to merit redemption.

⁴⁷ R"M Alshikh similarly suggests that the Pesach was meant to serve as an exchange for the lives of the idolatrous Israelites who really deserved death for their worship of the Egyptian gods, and points to its sacrificial elements but stops short of calling it an actual sin-offering.

⁴⁸ These commentators, thus, have the two clauses "וְהָיָה הַדָּם לָכֶם לְאֹת" and "וְרָאִיתִי אֶת הַדָּם וּפָסַחְתִּי עֲלֵכֶם" work together. Looking at the blood reinforced the nation's rejection of idolatry and served as evidence of their belief in Hashem so that when Hashem saw it, He was willing to save the nation.

⁴⁹ See also R. Bachya who explains similarly.

⁵⁰ According to HaKetav VeHaHabbalah the verse "וְהָיָה הַדָּם לָכֶם לְאֹת" refers to the result of this demonstration against the Egyptians. After the Israelites smeared the blood in full view of the Egyptians, the blood became a sign for the nation of their loyalty to Hashem.

⁵¹ From R"M Alshikh's words, too, it would seem that the blood was intended for Hashem, as the sheep and blood are viewed as replacements for the lives of the Israelites who should have been punished with death for their idolatry.

⁵² See above bullet (target audience) for elaboration.

⁵³ The sacrifice itself is so called as well, after the protection it offered.

⁵⁴ He brings both possibilities.

⁵⁵ According to both approaches, God is the subject of the "פסיחה" but according to the first possibility the word "פָסַח" would mean to skip over while according to the second it would mean to protect.

⁵⁶ Ralbag disagrees and thinks that these actions are simply signs of haste. Using bitter herbs as a condiment was a faster option than preparing a different dip.

⁵⁷ Bemidbar Rabbah might suggest that it was actually part of the sacrificial service, equivalent to the sprinkling of blood on the altar. R"M Alshikh asserts that it served as an exchange for the blood of the idolatrous Israelites and thus atoned for them.

⁵⁸ He also proposes that the point was to ensure that the nation not be distracted from their observance of the commandment or that those who were circumcised not be endangered from the night air.

⁵⁹ Chizkuni emphasizes the teaching to the Egyptians, but notes that this was a lesson learned by the Israelites as well.

⁶⁰ R. Bachya sees in the Pesach also a demonstration of Israelite belief in Hashem, which earned them their salvation. See his comments on 12:13 and the discussion above.

⁶¹ The position, though, must explain Shemot 12:13 which clearly states that Hashem will see the blood and act upon it. Chizkuni suggests that Hashem in this verse refers not to God, but to the "מַשְׁחִית" who is referred to by the name of the one who sent him. He and R. Bachya also suggest that the blood might have served more than one function. It was also a demonstration of Israelite dedication to Hashem which enables them to read the verse as the above approach.

⁶² Chizkuni suggests that this was aimed at preventing the Israelites themselves from making excuses for their sacrifice and forced them to be explicit about their intentions.

⁶³ This appears to be Chizkuni's understanding in verse 6, though in verse 13 he raises the alternative that it was meant for Hashem/ destroyer, but nonetheless placed on the inside.