Purpose of the Pesach/2

Purpose of the Pesach

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

Commentators disagree as to whether the Pesach was required for the physical salvation of the Israelites or was designed primarily to strengthen their spiritual relationship with Hashem. Jubilees and others adopt a literal reading of the verses and explain that the blood was aimed at the destroying angel who, if not for this sign, would not have been able to discern between Egyptians and Israelites.

Most Rabbinic sources, though, prefer to avoid attributing limitations to Hashem or His messengers, and thus view the Pesach as having inherent educational or religious value for either the Israelites or Egyptians. Thus, some Tannaim in the Mekhilta propose that the Pesach was commanded so that the Israelites could begin to perform Hashem's commandments and merit redemption. Others focus on the Pesach as a slaughtering of the Egyptians' gods, which was intended either to wean the Israelites away from idolatry, or to prove the impotence of their gods to the Egyptians themselves. These contrasting positions also have important ramifications for understanding whether the original Pesach was a full-fledged sacrifice, the nature of the "מַשְׁחִית", and the meaning of the name "פֶּסַח".

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, Ma'asei HashemMa'asei Mizrayim 17About R. Eliezer Ashkenazi

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.¹

Nature of the "מַשְׁחִית" – All commentators who take this approach agree that the "destroyer" was a separate entity (distinct from Hashem)² who, without 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":

• Angel³ – 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.⁴
• Celestial force – Ibn Daud, in contrast, asserts that the phrase refers to the powers of a heavenly sphere⁵ 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.⁶

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") – According to Jubilees,⁷ 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)‎.⁸ Jubilees does not feel obligated by the later homily of "‏אני ולא מלאך...‏" found in the MekhiltaMekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Bo Pischa 7 s.v. "וראיתי"About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael.
• Hashem protected the Israelites while the "מַשְׁחִית" slew the Egyptians – Shemot Rabbah presents Hashem as physically preventing the destroying angel from entering the Israelite homes.⁹ 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 Him¹⁰ – Seforno and the Ma'asei Hashem completely separate 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. This position is undoubtedly 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,¹¹ and thus the blood was needed to serve this function. Ibn Ezra¹² and Seforno¹³ note the parallel between our story and Yechezkel 9,¹⁴ where there is a similar marking of innocents in order to protect them from a "מַשְׁחִית".‎¹⁵
• Repellent – Ibn Daud,¹⁶ in contrast, asserts that the blood (and slaughtered sheep) had some inherent powers to ward off the harm of the "מַשְׁחִית", deterring him from entering the Israelite homes.¹⁷ Both Ibn Ezra and Ibn Daud¹⁸ 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.¹⁹
• Calming effect – In contrast, R. Yosef ibn KaspiBereshit 9:15Shemot 4:25Shemot 12:13About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi contends that the blood had no effect whatsoever on Hashem or the "מַשְׁחִית"‎,²⁰ but was intended merely to allay the fears of the Israelite masses.²¹ He explains that, in that era, people believed that blood was a panacea for fears and tension.²² Thus, Hashem commanded the Israelites to apply blood to their doors, so that they would not panic upon hearing the screams of the Egyptians over the deaths of their firstborns. Ibn Kaspi notes that, sometimes, Hashem will take into consideration the people's concerns even though they are unfounded.²³
• Demarcation of sanctified territory – The slaughtering of the Pesach and the smearing of its blood transformed the Israelite homes into quasi-altars.²⁴ This holiness and the ensuing Divine presence caused the homes to have extra-territorial status and be off-limits to the "מַשְׁחִית".‎²⁵

Meaning of the verb פסח

• Have mercy / protect²⁶ – Shemot Rabbah and one opinion in Ibn Ezra. According to them, Hashem is the subject of the verb.²⁷
• Pass over²⁸ – Jubilees, Ibn Ezra in the name of R. Saadia, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and Seforno. They attribute the action to the "מַשְׁחִית".‎²⁹

Inner or outer doorpost? R"Y Bekhor Shor states that the blood was smeared on the outside of the door so that the "מַשְׁחִית" would see it, and Ibn Daud writes that the blood was smeared on the gates. Ibn Ezra, however, stresses that it was not put on the gates of the courtyards,³⁰ but rather on the openings of the home.

"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.

Details of the commandment – 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.
• Timing – Seforno explains that, unlike all other sacrifices, the Pesach was offered close to sundown, so as to be in as close proximity as possible to when the "מַשְׁחִית" would be killing the Egyptian firstborn.³¹

"לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים" – Ibn Ezra explains that this refers to Hashem's protection of the Israelites from the "מַשְׁחִית".‎³²

פסח דורות – Jubilees posits that the annual celebration of Pesach, like the original ceremony, was also instituted for the purpose of protection,³³ so that no plague should visit the nation throughout the year.³⁴ 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"‎.³⁵

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

Purpose of sacrifices in general – Ibn Ezra maintains that sacrifices in general comes as a replacement for the person ("כופר נפש")‎.³⁶

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 Egypt³⁷ and be worthy of Hashem's deliverance.³⁸

Sources: R. Matya b. Charash in MekhiltaMekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Bo Pischa 5About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael,³⁹ R. Yishmael in MekhiltaMekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Bo Pischa 6 s.v. "ונתנו"Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Bo Pischa 7 s.v. "וראיתי"Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Bo Pischa 11 s.v. "וראה"About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael,⁴⁰ Targum Pseudo-JonathanShemot 12:13About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, RashiShemot 12:6Shemot 12:11Shemot 12:13Shemot 12:22Shemot 12:23About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki,⁴¹ 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 HoffmannRaayot Makhriot Neged Wellhausen p.6Shemot 12:12-13About R. D"Z Hoffmann,⁴² U. CassutoShemot 12:5About Prof. 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 critical for the nation's religious development.

Character of the sacrifice

• Sin offering – The Tzeror HaMor suggests that the sacrifice came to atone.⁴³ 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.⁴⁴ He also explains that the absence of the altar was due to the impurity of the land of Egypt.⁴⁵ While in a standard sin offering only the priest partakes from and not the sinner himself, it is possible that since the priests had not yet been chosen in Egypt, the entire nation functioned as priests,⁴⁶ and were thus permitted to partake from their own sacrifices.⁴⁷
• Petitionary offering – R. D"Z Hoffmann posits that the Pesach was brought, in part, as a request for Hashem's protection from the Plague of the Firstborn,⁴⁸ and the sheep represented the Israelites' dependence on Hashem to be their shepherd.⁴⁹
• Redemption of the firstborn (פדיון בכור) – Cassuto suggests that the Paschal lambs served as an exchange for the lives of the Israelite firstborns,⁵⁰ and their blood symbolized the consecration of the Israelites to God's worship.⁵¹

Function of the blood and Biblical parallels – On its most basic level, the smearing of the blood was an outward display of the fulfillment of the Divine command and a replacement for the sprinkling of sacrificial blood on the altar.⁵² Thus, the blood was not needed so that Hashem (or the "מַשְׁחִית") could differentiate between Egyptian and Israelite,⁵³ but rather functioned as evidence that the Israelites had indeed obeyed Hashem's command.⁵⁴ Additionally, for some of these commentators, it had a symbolic meaning:⁵⁵

• 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.⁵⁶
• 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,⁵⁷ or in substituting for the firstborns otherwise destined to die in the Plague of the Firstborn.⁵⁸

Nature of the "מַשְׁחִית" – According to this approach, the "מַשְׁחִית" refers either to Hashem Himself or His actions⁵⁹ or to an angel acting under His direct instructions:⁶⁰

• Destruction – Avudraham maintains that the term "מַשְׁחִית" does not refer to a Divine being but rather to the destruction wrought by Hashem Himself.⁶¹
• 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 specifically to God's attribute of justice.
• Angel – Rashi and R. D"Z Hoffmann raise the alternative possibility that it refers to an angel sent by Hashem to do his bidding.

Meaning of the verb פסח – The word can mean either "to have mercy"⁶² or to "pass over."⁶³ Due to the nation's observance of the Pesach, Hashem was merciful and skipped over their homes.

Details of the commandment

• Timing – R. D"Z Hoffmann explains that as the sacrifice was a request for salvation, it needed to be offered before the Plague came.
• Doorposts and doorframe – Zvi KarlCommentary on Mishnayot Pesachim, pp.xii-xiv suggests that this reflected the common belief that the Divine presence was by the door.⁶⁴
• 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.⁶⁵

Inner or outer doorpost? R. Yishmael contends that it was the inner doorpost since the blood needed to be seen only by Hashem.⁶⁶

"לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ" – According to most of these commentators, this has nothing to do with the dangers lurking outside due to the plague, as once the Israelites had become deserving of redemption, they should not have been harmed.⁶⁷ Thus, they provide alternative reasons for this prohibition:

• 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 Hoffmann⁶⁸ proposes that Hashem warned the nation against leaving their home lest they see God's presence when He came to slay the Egyptian firstborn.

"לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים" – This opinion could explain that Hashem was watching and waiting for the Children of Israel to be worthy of redemption.⁶⁹

פסח דורות – R. D"Z Hoffmann says that after the construction of the Mishkan, it was no longer permitted to offer sacrifices in private homes, and thus the character of the Pesach and some of its laws changed.

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

Purpose of sacrifices in general – This approach might understand that general sacrifices also come for the purpose of affording an opportunity for the nation to serve Hashem and become closer to him.⁷⁰

Thanksgiving Offering

The Pesach was a Korban Todah, a celebratory peace offering 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

Focal point of the commandment – R"C Crescas asserts that in slaughtering a sheep, the Israelites displayed their gratitude to Hashem that they themselves were not slaughtered. R. D"Z Hoffmann adds that the festive sacrificial meal was also an important part of the thanksgiving celebration.

Character of the sacrifice – R. D"Z Hoffmann proves that the Pesach is a type of peace offering (שלמים) from the fact that they share the unique properties of being called a "זֶבַח" ‎(12:27) and being eaten by the person bringing the sacrifice.⁷¹ The missing sacrificial components of the altar and priest were replaced here by the house (with the blood being placed on its doorposts) and the Israelites themselves.⁷²

Function of the blood – According to R. D"Z Hoffmann, 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.⁷³ In the absence of an altar, the Israelite house took on that function and, thus, the blood was sprinkled on the doorposts.⁷⁴

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

Details of the commandment

• Male – Philo proposes that a male was chosen for the show of gratitude since Paroh's decrees had been aimed against the male children.
• Sheep – R"C Crescas suggests that it was fitting to sacrifice the god of the Egyptians to highlight their undoing.
• Timing – R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that since the offering was also a request (and not just a show of thanksgiving) for salvation from the Plague of the Firstborn, it needed to be offered before the Plague occurred.⁷⁵
• Consumed by morning – R. D"Z Hoffmann notes that this parallels the law regarding the korban todah.⁷⁶
• Ready to go – The commands to eat the Pesach roasted, with matzah and bitter herbs, and while dressed for the journey may be intended to insure the completion of the meal before the Plague and to connect the thanksgiving offering with the actual exodus.⁷⁷

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.

Inner or outer doorpost? It is unclear, according to this position, where the blood was spread.

"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.⁷⁸

פסח דורות – Philo maintains that the annual Pesach sacrifice is an expression of the gratitude due for our redemption from Egypt.⁷⁹

Demonstrative Act Against Idolatry

Sheep were part of the Egyptian pantheon,⁸⁰ and the slaughtering of the Pesach proclaimed the sovereignty of Hashem and His supremacy over the Egyptian deities.⁸¹ 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,⁸² RalbagShemot 12:3Shemot 12:7Shemot 12:9Shemot 12:13Shemot 12:22-23Shemot 12 Toelet 3About R. Levi b. Gershom, Akeidat YitzchakShemot #38About R. Yitzchak Arama, AbarbanelShemot 12, Questions 4-5Shemot 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

Focal point of the commandment – This approach views the slaughtering of the sheep, the ultimate act of defiance against an Egyptian god, as the focus of the Pesach.⁸³

Attaining atonement – Although all these sources view the Pesach as a necessary part of the nation's purification 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 deity, the Israelites made plain their denunciation of Egyptian beliefs.⁸⁴
• Educational tool – Rambam and Ralbag focus less on the demonstrative aspect of the ritual, and view it instead as an educative process. In observing 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.⁸⁵

Target audience of the blood

• The Israelites – According to Ralbag, Akeidat Yitzchak, 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.⁸⁶
• The Egyptians – In contrast, HaKetav VeHaKabbalah⁸⁷ 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.⁸⁸
• 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 to see the religious devotion of the nation.⁸⁹

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.⁹⁰

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.⁹¹ Abarbanel adds that it can also mean to pass over,⁹² and he proposes that Hashem skipped over the homes which displayed a sign of dedication to Him.

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.⁹³

Details of the commandment – Many of the details of the Pesach are understood as ways of teaching the Israelites to reject the Egyptian gods, or, alternatively, as displays of their dedication to Hashem, despite the inherent dangers:

• 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.⁹⁴
• Four days – This gave the nation ample time both to display their intended slaughtering and to reflect on their new beliefs.
• Unblemished male – Ralbag points out that in killing an unblemished male, viewed by the Egyptians as the most respected member of the species, and nonetheless, emerging unscathed, the nation would learn the worthlessness of the Egyptian god.
• 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.
• Doorposts and doorframe – Abarbanel notes (based on the verse in Yeshayahu 57:8) that the idolaters would place their idols behind the door ("אַחַר הַדֶּלֶת וְהַמְּזוּזָה"), and thus it was in this location that the blood of the Egyptian god was smeared.
• Roasted – Ralbag proposes that since the Egyptians would normally punish by fire anyone who defied their gods, roasting the sheep whole was a further sign of disrespect and proof of the inability of the god to punish.
• Matzah and maror – Rambam notes 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, and prohibited leaven and honey. This could similarly explain the choice of matzah and bitter herbs.⁹⁵

"לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ" – According to Abarbanel, this was a safety measure, so that the Israelites not come in contact with the distressed Egyptians who might take revenge on them.⁹⁶

General purpose of sacrifices – According to the Rambam, sacrifices as a whole and many of the details of their commandments are a concession to the nation's foibles and a means to gradually pull them away from idolatrous leanings.⁹⁷

פסח דורות – According to this approach, future Pesach sacrifices 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 and smearing of their blood 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,⁹⁸ RambanShemot 12:3Shemot 12:22About R. Moshe Nachmanides, R. BachyaShemot 12:23R. Bachya b. Asher⁹⁹

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

Target audience of the blood – 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.¹⁰⁰

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

• Four days – This provided time for the Egyptians to see their gods tied up 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.¹⁰¹
• Twilight – This time was chosen to maximize exposure of the slaughtering to all those who were returning home.
• Roasted – The cooking of the sheep on a open fire ensured that the sheep was both seen and smelled by all.¹⁰²
• Roasted whole – This insured that no one could mistake that what was killed was, in fact, the Egyptian god.
• Dressed to go, bitter herbs – Choosing a condiment that was bitter rather than sweet and eating in a hurry were both signs of disrespect.

Inner or outer doorpost? R. Yitzchak asserts that the blood was smeared on the outside, where the Egyptians could see that their gods were powerless.¹⁰³

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.

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

"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.

פסח דורות – Future sacrifices commemorate the original Pesach and Hashem's skipping over the homes of the Israelites, but they have no demonstrative purpose. This works well with the Rabbinic position that many of the commands that were instituted to mock the Egyptians applied only for the Pesach in Egypt.

Combination

It is possible to combine the above approaches and suggest that the various aspects of the Pesach ceremony each had different objectives.

¹ It is unclear whether this position views the Pesach as having the character of a sacrifice – see below.

² 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.

³ 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.

⁴ Jubilees understands the "מַשְׁחִית" to be an entire host of angels, "חילות משטמה" ("the legions of Mastema"), possibly based on the plural "מִשְׁלַחַת מַלְאֲכֵי רָעִים" in Tehillim 78:49. 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.

⁵ 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.

⁶ Cf. Ma'asei Hashem. 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.

⁷ This is also the position which Ibn Ezra cites in the name of R. Saadia.

⁸ 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.

⁹ Cf. Divrei HaYamim 21:15 for a parallel instance of Hashem stopping a "מַשְׁחִית" from killing.

¹⁰ 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.

¹¹ 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.

¹² See also Radak Yechezkel 9:4.

¹³ 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.

¹⁴ Compare also to the function of the "אוֹת" given to Kayin in Bereshit 4:15 and the "אוֹת" of the scarlet cord in Yehoshua 2, and see Akeidat Yitzchak below who explicitly rejects this comparison.

¹⁵ There, those to be spared are marked on their foreheads, and the destroying messengers are told not to approach them. Cf. the Samaritan custom today to place blood from their Pesach sacrifice on their foreheads.

¹⁶ Ibn Ezra also alludes to this notion in his commentary on Shemot 4.

¹⁷ If "סַף" in Shemot 12:22 is understood like R. Yishmael in the MekhiltaMekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Bo Pischa 11About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael to mean "threshold", then the doorway was sealed off on all four sides with blood, preventing demonic entrance. Cf. Lekach Tov Shemot 12:7: "נמצינו למדין שארבעה מזבחות היו לאבותינו במצרים, המשקוף ושתי המזוזות והסף, כדברי ר' ישמעאל".

¹⁸ They were preceded by the Lekach Tov Shemot 4:25. For elaboration, see Mystery at the Malon.

¹⁹ 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 meant to summon the Ba'al rather than to deter bloodshed.

²⁰ It appears that Ibn Kaspi understands "וְרָאִיתִי אֶת הַדָּם וּפָסַחְתִּי עֲלֵכֶם" as merely a figure of speech ("דברה תורה בלשון בני אדם"), as he brings it to support his parallel interpretation of "וּרְאִיתִיהָ לִזְכֹּר בְּרִית עוֹלָם" in Bereshit 9:16.

²¹ According to Ibn Kaspi, the phrase "וְהָיָה הַדָּם לָכֶם לְאֹת" proves that the blood was needed for the Israelites themselves.

²² Like Ibn Ezra above, also Ibn Kaspi sees a linkage to the story in Shemot 4, and he explains that Zipporah let blood from her son because she was terrified over Moshe's illness. See the extended discussion of his position in Mystery at the Malon.

²³ He cites the example of Hashem preventing Bilam from cursing the Israelites. In that case, even though the curse itself would have been ineffective, Hashem did not want it to instill terror in the hearts of the nation. See Why Worry About Bilam for details. See also Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle? for Shadal's interpretation of the words "וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף" there which are almost identical to our formulation in Shemot 12:13.

²⁴ See below for the formulation of R. Yosef in Bavli Pesachim 96a and the development of 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 and R. D"Z HoffmannShemot 12:12-13About R. D"Z Hoffmann.

²⁵ This is the position taken by the Ma'asei Hashem. See also R. Amnon Bazak, "ייחודו של קרבן פסח במסגרת עולם הקרבנות", Daf Kesher 540 of Yeshivat Har Etzion (Parashat Vayikra, 5756) who suggests that the homes afforded immunity like the altar (cf. Melakhim I 1:50-53, 2:28-34). He adds that this status can also account for the prohibitions of leaven in the Israelite homes (as it is forbidden upon the altar, as per Vayikra 2:11-12) and of taking any of the sacrificial meat outside of the sanctified boundaries of the homes.

²⁶ See Yeshayahu 31:5 cited by Ibn Ezra. This is also the position of the LXX Exodus 12:13,27 and the opinion of R. Yishmael in the Mekhilta cited below.

²⁷ Ibn Ezra proposes that the sacrifice is so called due to the Divine protection that it offered.

²⁸ See Shemuel II 9:13 and Kings I 18:21 cited by Ibn Ezra, and see LXX Exodus 12:23. Following R. Yoshiyah in the Mekhilta, R"Y Bekhor Shor suggests that it is related to the root פסע, with the pharyngeals ח and ע being exchanged.

²⁹ See above that, although the subject of the verb is Hashem, they interpret it to refer to Hashem's agent.

³⁰ He maintains that it was intentionally 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 (cf. Seforno). 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.

³¹ Seforno suggests that the Pesach really should have been sacrificed at night; however, sacrifices are permitted to be brought only during the day. He also explains that the son's question in Shemot 12:26 relates to the unique timing of the Pesach.

³² See Ramban who rejects this option from the continuation of the verse "לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם".

³³ Although 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. In contrast, Ibn Ezra in his Long Commentary to Shemot 12:24 cites people who maintained that the application of the blood was performed in all generations. The Samaritans, to this day, place blood from their Paschal sacrifice on their foreheads.

³⁴ 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.

³⁵ Even according to this position, Shemot 12:27 emphasizes that the annual rite commemorates the salvation of the Israelites during the Plague of the Firstborn. See R. D"Z Hoffmann below who notes that the shift away from a home-centered sacrifice after the construction of the Tabernacle was mandated by the new prohibition of offering sacrifices outside the Mishkan.

³⁶ See Ibn Ezra Vayikra 1:1,4 (and Ramban Vayikra 1:9), and see Purpose of Sacrifices.

³⁷ Thus, according to this position, the harm which could have potentially come to the Israelites had they not brought the Pesach would have been deserved rather than simply arbitrary.

³⁸ Only the later sources in this category (beginning with the Tzeror HaMor) explicitly state that the Pesach was a sacrifice and attempt to account for the missing elements of the priest and altar. However, it is likely that this is the understanding of the earlier sources as well.

³⁹ R. Matya's point of departure is the need for taking the sheep already on the tenth of Nisan. However, he proceeds to speak also of the need for the blood of the Pesach.

⁴⁰ R. Yishmael explains that "וְרָאָה אֶת הַדָּם" means that Hashem will see the "מצות שהם עושים". [He also does not adopt the reading of the Tannaim below who understand "מִשְׁכוּ" as a command to pull away from idolatry.]

⁴¹ Rashi combines the position of R. Matya with the opinion of R. Eliezer HaKappar and R. Yosi HaGelili below that the language of "מִשְׁכוּ" was intended as an instruction to refrain from idolatry. However, Rashi does not seem to view these positions as conflicting (like they are in the Mekhilta), but rather presents them as compatible with each other.

⁴² R. D"Z Hoffmann combines this possibility with the option that the Pesach was a thanksgiving sacrifice – see below.

⁴³ Cf. Bemidbar Rabbah below. See also AbarbanelBereshit 15About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel who suggests that the Paschal sacrifice atoned for the sin of the sale of Yosef. For more on Abarbanel's position regarding the ramifications of selling Yosef, see Purposes of the Egyptian Bondage.

⁴⁴ A prohibition of leaven also accompanies most sacrifices.

⁴⁵ Thus, the house stood in for the altar. Cf. Targum Pseudo-JonathanShemot 19:4About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which addresses the absence of the altar by asserting that Hashem flew the Children of Israel ("עַל כַּנְפֵי נְשָׁרִים") to the site of the Beit HaMikdash so that they could sacrifice the Pesach (and see Mekhilta Bachodesh 2: "ואביא אתכם אלי – לבית הבחירה").

⁴⁶ Cf. Philo and R. D"Z Hoffmann below. Interestingly, the phrase of "עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְעַל כְּרָעָיו וְקִרְבּוֹ" appears only here and with regard to the high-priest's sin offering in Vayikra 4:11.

⁴⁷ If one assumes that the firstborns functioned as the priests until the Tabernacle was built, one might claim that their sacrificing of the Pesach was what saved them from the Plague of the Firstborn.

⁴⁸ Zvi KarlCommentary on Mishnayot Pesachim, pp.xii-xiv, too, views this as a request, but suggests that the nation was asking for protection from the dangers of the upcoming journey. It should be noted, though, that petitionary offerings are rare in Tanakh, with Shemuel I 7:9 being a rare exception (and in that case it was a burnt offering). There are, however, other cases of Biblical vows which were carried out after the requested salvation took place.

⁴⁹ 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. He also notes that a sheep was offered both for the Pesach and for the daily offering of the קרבן תמיד.

⁵⁰ One might suggest that the Pesach was, in essence, the first fulfillment of the command of redeeming the firstborns. See Shemot 13:13 that a lamb ("שֶׂה") is also used to redeem a firstborn donkey. For literature discussing possible parallels to the Muslim fidya (פדיון) rite which also entails slaughter and consumption of an animal and smearing of its blood on a human or doorway, see W. Propp, The Anchor Yale Bible: Exodus 1–18 (New Haven, 1999): 434-441.

⁵¹ However, it is unclear, according to him, why every individual was obligated to bring the Pesach rather than merely the firstborns, and why the meat was eaten instead of being burnt.

⁵² According to R. D"Z Hoffmann, the house functioned as an altar. Cf. R. Yosef in Bavli Pesachim 96a: "ג' מזבחות היו שם – על המשקוף ועל שתי המזוזות".

⁵³ R. Yishmael makes this point explicitly. See also Mekhilta Amalek 1Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Beshalach Amalek 1About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael which makes a similar point, linking our case to two others (mentioned in Mishna R"H 3:8) of Moshe raising his arms in the battle against Amalek and the copper snake ("נְחַשׁ הַנְּחֹשֶׁת") which Moshe made in Bemidbar 21. In all of these cases, the Mekhilta says, it was the nation's belief in Hashem which caused their salvation rather than some sort of magical action. See also below for why, according to this approach, the blood was to be applied specifically by the door.

⁵⁴ R. D"Z Hoffmann adds that the blood also served as a sign for both the Children of Israel and the outside world that the Israelites' salvation was due to their worship of God.

⁵⁵ See also JosephusAntiquities 2:14:6About Josephus who writes that the bunches of hyssop were used to purify their homes. It is likely that he is influenced by the use of a hyssop in the purification processes of Vayikra 14 and Bemidbar 19, both of which purify, not only people, but homes as well. These are the only other places a hyssop appears in the Torah.

⁵⁶ See also Shemot 24:8. It is also possible that "וְהָיָה הַדָּם לָכֶם לְאֹת" in Shemot 12:13 refers to the "sign" of a covenant (cf. Bereshit 9:12-17, 17:11, Shemot 31:13-17).

⁵⁷ This is suggested by all three of these commentators.

⁵⁸ This last possibility is found only in Cassuto.

⁵⁹ See the Mekhilta which asserts: "וה' הכה כל בכור בארץ מצרים – לא על ידי מלאך ולא על ידי שליח".

⁶⁰ It is likely that these sources reflect a reluctance to attribute any powers to a separate demonic force which is not under direct Divine control.

⁶¹ Avudraham suggests that "מַשְׁחִית" is the equivalent of the noun השחתה or the verb להשחית. See also Yechezkel 9:6 and Divrei HaYamim II 20:23.

⁶² See R. Yishmael in the Mekhilta and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.

⁶³ See R. Hirsch and RD"Z Hoffmann (following R. Yoshiyah in the Mekhilta) who prefer this option.

⁶⁴ Thus, the verses of Shema are similarly placed in a parchment on the doorpost (מזוזה). See also Shemot 21:6 and Yeshayahu 57:8 (cited by Abarbanel below). Contrast to the previous approach according to which the blood was applied by the door to prevent the "מַשְׁחִית" from entering.

⁶⁵ According to Zvi KarlCommentary on Mishnayot Pesachim, pp.xii-xiv, as the nation was requesting protection for their journey, it was fitting to partake of the offering while dressed to go and ready to leave at a moment's notice.

⁶⁶ Cf. R. Yitzchak in the Mekhilta cited below.

⁶⁷ See however the Mekhilta and Rashi who suggest that once the destroyer was given license to kill, he would not differentiate between righteous and evil, making it unsafe to be outside.

⁶⁸ Cf. Ramban below.

⁶⁹ This is the interpretation of Ramban below.

⁷⁰ See Kuzari 2:26 and Ramban Shemot 40:34, Vayikra 1:9, and see Purpose of Sacrifices.

⁷¹ The choice of animal, its age, sprinkling of blood, and prohibition of leftovers are elements shared by other sacrifices as well. See below regarding the need to finish the meat by morning.

⁷² Both Philo and R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that at this first sacrifice, all of the Israelites were equal, demonstrating their potential to be a "מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים". Philo adds that this was also an obvious necessity since there was as of yet no altar and no Priestly or Levite class.

⁷³ Such a view of the blood obviates the theological difficulty of Hashem needing a sign. However, this position does not explain the Torah's presentation of the blood as being the reason for God's passing over or protection of the Israelites, as salvation should not be dependent on a thanksgiving offering.

⁷⁴ Cf. R. Yosef in Bavli Pesachim 96a: "ג' מזבחות היו שם – על המשקוף ועל שתי המזוזות".

⁷⁵ See elaboration above.

⁷⁶ These are the only two sacrifices in which the meat must be consumed by morning.

⁷⁷ Philo suggests that most of these details represent haste. R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that the roasting was to show that the offering had some elements of a burnt offering (עולה) as well. For a broader discussion and symbolic interpretations of the many details related to the Pesach offering, see Philo.

⁷⁸ See Ramban below.

⁷⁹ See above that R. D"Z Hoffmann says that the character of the Pesach and some of its laws changed after the construction of the Mishkan, as it was no longer permitted to offer sacrifices in private homes.

⁸⁰ Amun, one of the main Egyptian gods was depicted as having the head of a ram. However, lambs and goats (used for the Pesach) were less venerated. Thus, commentators who adopt this approach must view them as an extension of the ram.

⁸¹ This position might agree with the previous approach that the Pesach had the character of a sacrifice, while differing in that it emphasizes that the sacrifice was mandated as a negation of idolatry rather than due to its own inherent value. Alternatively, it might say that the Pesach cannot be characterized as a sacrifice as it was missing the central elements of a priest and an altar. Cf. Philo and R. D"Z Hoffmann above.

⁸² R. Bachya sees in the Pesach also a demonstration directed at edifying the Egyptians. See his comments on 12:23 and the discussion below.

⁸³ See, however, R. Eliezer HaKappar who emphasizes the preparing of the sheep for four days before its slaughter.

⁸⁴ Although one can understand R. Eliezer HaKappar, R. Yosi HaGelili and R. Eliezer in this manner, none of the three explicitly mention that the Pesach was aimed at killing the Egyptian gods. They simply say that Hashem was telling the nation "משכו ידיכם מע"ז והדבקו במצוות" which could also be understood to mean that Hashem is directing the nation to reject idolatry and busy themselves with doing Hashem's bidding. If so, the mitzvah of Pesach is not necessarily a rejection of past ways (סור מרע), but is simply a positive act of loyalty to Hashem (עשה טוב). If one takes this understanding, the positions of these Tannaim are very similar to the approach above that the Pesach is a positive action performed to merit redemption.

⁸⁵ Cf. Tzeror HaMor above and Abarbanel cited in the note there. 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. He points to its sacrificial elements but stops short of calling it an actual sin-offering.

⁸⁶ 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.

⁸⁷ See also R. Bachya who explains similarly.

⁸⁸ 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.

⁸⁹ 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.

⁹⁰ See above for elaboration regarding the intended audience.

⁹¹ The sacrifice itself is so called as well, after the protection it offered.

⁹² He brings both possibilities.

⁹³ According to both approaches, Hashem 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.

⁹⁴ 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.

⁹⁵ See the article of R. David Eliach in HaDoar (?). Ralbag offers the alternative that these actions are simply signs of haste. Using bitter herbs as a condiment was a faster option than preparing a different dip.

⁹⁶ 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.

⁹⁷ See Purpose of Sacrifices.

⁹⁸ Chizkuni emphasizes the teaching to the Egyptians, but notes that this was a lesson learned by the Israelites as well.

⁹⁹ 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.

¹⁰⁰ 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 a dual function; it was also a demonstration of Israelite dedication to Hashem. This enables them to interpret the verse like the approach above.

¹⁰¹ Chizkuni suggests that this was aimed at preventing the Israelites themselves from making excuses for their sacrifice and forcing them to be explicit about their intentions.

¹⁰² Cf. Hadar Zekeinim and Daat Zekeinim in the name of Ibn Ezra.

¹⁰³ This appears to be Chizkuni's understanding in verse 6, although in verse 13 he raises the alternative that it was meant for Hashem (or the destroyer), but nonetheless placed on the inside. See Ibn Ezra above who rejects the possibility that the blood was placed where it could be publicly seen.