Moshe had difficulty regarding the renewal of the moon, how much of it must be visible so that it be fit to be consecrated. Re”m cited and compared many sources but they are not connected. . . However, it seems clear to me that exceptional wisdom is needed in this matter. It says in Maseches Rosh Hashanah 20b: “Said R. Zeira said R. Nachman, ‘The new moon is invisible for twenty-four hours. For us [in Bavel], it is six from the old moon and eighteen from the new. For them [in Eretz Yisroel] it is six from the new and eighteen from the old.’” And this is the point over which Moshe had difficulty: is it six hours from the new, or is it eighteen from the new? (Nachalas Yaakov)

Has it not already been stated “You speak?” Rashi’s words are difficult to understand. For perhaps when it says (Shemos 7:2): “You (Moshe) speak,” it means that Moshe speaks to Aharon, but to B’nei Yisrael, both speak together. Furthermore, even if it means that Moshe alone speaks, this was said in connection to Pharaoh, i.e., Moshe speaks alone when he is speaking to Pharaoh, but to B’nei Yisrael both speak. The answer is: Although it is written, “Aharon your brother will be your spokesman” (7:1), Moshe must first concisely tell the message to Pharaoh once, just as he heard it from Hashem. And that is the meaning of, “You (Moshe) speak.” Afterwards, Aharon will express it eloquently until it is palatable to Pharaoh. And the same is true regarding B’nei Yisrael, as it is written (4:16), “He will speak to the people for you.” Aharon will speak [eloquently] to the people for you, but [first] you must concisely tell them the message once. (Re”m)

Speak today, on the first of the month. . . I.e., “On the tenth of this month” does not refer to when to speak, rather when to take the lamb. Otherwise the verse should have stated, “On the tenth of this month לאמר (say), ‘they shall take. . .” Then it would mean, “Speak on the tenth.” But since לאמר comes before “On the tenth of this month,” it refers back to “on the first of the month.”

The korbon Pesach in Egypt. . . [Rashi knows this] because הזה (“this month”) excludes [any korbon Pesach brought in later years]. The Maharshal explains that [Rashi knows this] because otherwise the verse should have [reversed the order] and said, ויקחו להם בעשור לחודש , thus telling us that the taking is to be on the tenth. But the verse is written as it is, to tell us that only this time is the taking [of the korbon Pesach] on the tenth, but not for all generations.

[One lamb] per family. . . Later (v. 21), Moshe tells B’nei Yisrael to take “a lamb למשפחותיכם (for your families).” Thus we know that בית אבות [mentioned in our verse] is the same as משפחות . That is why Rashi explains למשפחותיכם (v. 21) to mean בית אבות .

While the lamb still exists, while it is still alive. . . I.e., our Sages [change the ה of מהיות to a ח , and] interpret מהיות משה (while the lamb still exists) as מחיותו דשה (while the lamb is still alive); because the letters אחע"ה are interchangeable.

Each according to his fitness to eat. . . [Rashi is answering the question:] The korbon Pesach is eaten only after one is full. If so, why does it go according to how much a person eats, [if he has already eaten his fill]? Thus Rashi explains לפי אכלו as one who is fit to eat [a kezayis].

You will be counted. Rashi cites Onkelos who translates it as תתמנון so we will not say that תכוסו means, “you will count others.” (Re”m) However, it seems to me that Rashi [cites Onkelos] so we will not say that תכוסו means, “you will slaughter.” [We might think this because] “Do not slaughter” (Vayikra 22:28) is translated by Onkelos as לא תכסון . And so is תכוסו interpreted in the Talmud. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Its entire [first] year it is called. . . This excludes an animal after one year of its life has passed. Although it has not yet lived two full years, it is unfit for the korbon Pesach. So says Rashi in Maseches Pesachim (97b), that a male in its second year is unfit for the korbon Pesach. (Nachalas Yaakov, see further proofs there)

Either one or the other. . . [Rashi is explaining that the beginning of our verse, where it says שה , means also either one or the other] — as it is written (Devarim 14:4), ושה עזים . And if you suggest that [the end of our verse is to be understood literally], “One from the sheep and one from the goats,” then the [beginning of our] verse should have said שיים (plural form), as a goat is also called שה . Perforce our verse means, “Either one or the other.”

Why was it necessary to acquire it four days before its slaughter. . . Why did Rashi not ask this question on (v. 3), “On the tenth of this ( הזה ) month they shall take. . .”? It seems that the answer is: There we would have assumed that the four days [before its slaughter] are to examine the animal against blemishes, a law that applies also to the korbon Pesach of later generations. For הזה excludes only the Pesach sheini sacrifice from the four days of examination. But now that it is written here, “You shall hold it in safekeeping,” which implies examining, we know that “they shall take” (v. 3) means actually acquiring the animal [as a korbon Pesach]. If so, the question arises: Why did it have to be acquired as a korbon Pesach four days before its slaughter, when the korbon Pesach of later generations may be acquired at any time [prior to its slaughter]? But we could challenge this explanation: How does the statement of R. Masia b. Cheresh answer the question? [Acquiring the animal is a one-time act, not a mitzvah “with which to be occupied” for four days.] Furthermore, why is the mitzvah done four days before its slaughter — no less and no more? This matter requires further investigation.

And because they were immersed in idol worship. . . Here, Rashi is offering an additional reason: “And because they were. . .”

From here we derive that “the agent of a person is as himself.” You might ask: Why was this not derived from (v. 3), “Each man [shall take] a lamb for [his] family,” where one man takes a lamb for the entire family? Furthermore, perhaps the case in our verse is different [from most cases where “the agent of a person is as himself”] since in our case both the person and the agent are partners in the animal? The answer is: The rule is derived from both verses together. One verse tells us the rule where there is a partnership. And since the rule is repeated in the second verse, this tells us to apply it even where there is no partnership. So it is explained in Maseches Kiddushin 42a. (Re”m) Nachalas Yaakov disagrees, and concludes: It seems to me that [the rule is derived as follows:] It should have said, “They shall slaughter them,” implying that many people shall slaughter many Pesach sacrifices. Or it could have said, “He shall slaughter it.” However when it is written, “They shall slaughter it,” the question arises: “But did they all slaughter it? From here we derive. . .”

This refers to the mitzvah of “taking the blood.” [Rashi knows this because] it only needed to say, “and place (some of) its blood. . .” Why did it say also, “they shall take”? To teach us about קבלת הדם (taking the blood).

I might think that it is taken by hand. . . Rashi means as follows: Since we learn קבלת הדם from “They shall take,” and it is not written into what to put the blood, therefore, “I might think that it is taken by hand. Therefore the Torah states, ‘Which is in the basin.’” (Nachalas Yaakov)

In which people do not reside. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “In which they will eat.” And we cannot say that the verse means to place blood only on the houses in which they actually**eat, but not on other houses, even if they are fit to live in. For it is written later (v. 13), “on the houses where you are [staying],” implying that blood should be put on all houses that are fit to live in, even if they do not eat there.

But not the sinews or the bones. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Scripture should have written, “They shall eat it,” without mentioning “the meat.” (Gur Aryeh) The sinews referred to here are the ones so tough that they are not [normally] eaten.

Any bitter herb is called מרור . [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Matzos and bitter herbs,” comparing one to the other. Just as any seed-plant that turns to leaven may be used for matzah, so too with מרור : any seed-plant that is a bitter herb may be used for מרור .

The Torah tells us ובשל מבושל to include anything boiled. In other words, since it is written ,מים we would think that boiling is forbidden only in water. Therefore it says [the repetitive term] ובשל מבושל , to include all liquids [in the prohibition]. You might ask: Let the verse omit מים and [thereby eliminate the need to say] מבושל , and mention only נא and ובשל ? Re”m answers: Cooking includes roasting, as it is written [later about the korbon Pesach], “You shall cook it and eat it” (Devarim 16:7), and Rashi there explains, “Roasting is also called cooking.” That is why our verse needed to state that only מים [is forbidden to cook with], but not roasting [which is permitted, and consequently Scripture needed to forbid all liquids]. This was needed even though it is written, “But only roasted over fire,” and we would know that here, cooking does not include roasting.

He roasts it all as one with its head together with its legs together with its inner parts. Rashi is clarifying the meaning of the verse, for we might have said that the korbon Pesach’s head, legs and inner parts are all roasted together, and the rest of the sheep by itself. Therefore Rashi explains that the entire sheep is roasted as one.

And he places its intestines inside after having rinsed them. Re”m writes: “This is true only according to R. Yosi HaGelili, while R. Akiva disagrees and says that this would be like cooking — the intestines should rather be suspended outside the sheep. But it is puzzling that Rashi follows R. Yosi HaGelili’s view rather than R. Akiva’s, when the Halachah generally follows R. Akiva’s view over that of any single Sage who disagrees with him.” The Nachalas Yaakov writes: If Rashi was following R. Yosi’s view, then why would he say that only the intestines are placed inside? He should have said that even the legs are placed inside! Rather, it seems to me that according to Rashi, [all views agree that the intestines are placed inside,] just as all agree that the head is [not] placed inside. And the only disagreement is over the legs. (see Nachalas Yaakov)

Because “morning” signifies the time of sunrise. . . This is puzzling, for in many places in the Talmud we see that בקר refers to daybreak עמוד השחר , and Rashi clearly says so himself in Berachos 9a and Pesachim 120b. (Nachalas Yaakov)

On the following morning go and burn it. The reason why Rashi says עד בקר שני תעמוד ותשרפנו rather than simply quoting the verse, which says עד בקר באש תשרפו , is so that we do not err and say that the verse means that the korbon Pesach should be burned continuously from the first day until the second day. Rashi says that we should not begin to go burn it until the second day. (Re”m) Furthermore, Rashi says תעמוד so we will not think that while the verse prohibits burning it before the second day, one is permitted not to burn it altogether. Therefore Rashi says תעמוד , implying that it is a positive mitzvah to burn it. (Gur Aryeh)

Ready to travel. Rashi means that they do not actually have to belt their waists; rather, they should hurry as though they want to leave to travel.

The korbon is called “Pesach” on account of the skipping. . . Rashi is explaining [the verse in light of the following:] “It is a Pesachoffering to Hashem” comes to give the reason why “You must eat it in haste,” [the reason being that haste emulates Hashem’s skipping].

You perform all its service for the sake of Hashem. . . The correct version is [as it appears in this book]: “You perform all its service for the sake of Hashem in a manner of skipping and springing as a remembrance of its name. . .” I.e., the phrase דבר אחר should not preface the words, “In a manner of skipping. . .” (Maharshal)

As if He were a king who passes from place to place. . . Rashi is saying that Hashem was like a king who passes straight through without turning aside into the city’s alleys. Although Hashem passed through on one road only, the first-borns of Egypt were struck whether they were on that road or elsewhere. This is what “I will pass through” comes to teach us. (Re”m)

Also other first-born who were in Egypt. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, what does [the verse’s repetition of] בארץ מצרים come to teach?

I myself, not through an agent. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “I will execute judgments,” and then adds, “I am Hashem,” [to indicate that Hashem did it Himself]. If so, on the verse “Hashem struck down every first-born” (v. 29), why does Rashi comment: “He and His Divine court”? The answer is: Since He Himself was striking, it was not considered through an agent even though His Divine court was with Him.

For [future] generations. Rashi explains this so we will not make a mistake and say that “for you” means only for this generation. Although it is written afterwards, “Throughout your generations,” thus Rashi did not really need to explain this, he did so to connect it to וחגותם אתו . (Nachalas Yaakov)

Which day is the day of remembrance. This is because the Torah previously mentioned [several dates on which significant events occurred:] the first of Nisan, the tenth, and the fourteenth.

The Torah therefore says: “As a statute forever shall you celebrate it.” We need not ask: Now [that it says “forever”], why do we need “throughout your generations”? The answer is: Otherwise, I would think it is an eternal statute for this generation to celebrate it every year, but not for future generations. Therefore, both phrases are necessary. (Nachalas Yaakov)

This teaches that on the seventh day of Pesach it is not obligatory to eat matzoh. . . [Rashi knows this] because of what is written in Devarim 16:8 [at the end of the verse of “Six days shall you eat matzos]: “And on the seventh day shall be a festival to Hashem your God.” If there was an obligation to eat matzoh on the seventh day, it should say expressly, “And on the seventh day you shall eat matzos and it shall be a festival.” This would be needed since that verse begins, “Six days shall you eat matzos,” hinting not on the seventh — thus we would think that the seventh day is an exception to the rule of eating matzoh. Therefore, [since at the end of the verse the seventh day is mentioned as being a festival whilematzoh is omitted,] the verse is teaching [in the format of דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד ] that the seventh day is a festival alone, without an obligation to eat matzoh. We need not ask: Why is it not written, “In the evening you shall eat matzoh; for seven days do not eat chometz”? And then we would know that matzoh is obligatory on the first night, and optional for the remaining seven days. The answer is: We would then think that the verse means to start eating matzoh in the evening, and continue eating it all seven days in place of eating chometz. (See Re”m for further elaboration; what appears here is sufficient to understand Rashi.)

Something that was included in a general rule and was singled out. . . The Rashbam explains (Pesachim 120a) that the seventh day was included in [the general rule of our verse,] “You must eat matzos for seven days.” But it was singled out in Devarim: “And on the seventh day shall be a festival to Hashem your God.” For there, “you shall eat matzos” is not mentioned. This teaches about itself: on the seventh day, matzoh is merely optional. From this method we derive that it was singled out not only to teach about itself; rather, to teach something new concerning the rule as a whole. (Re”m rejects this approach and explains it differently; [see previous entry].)

Therefore, the Torah states: “In the evening you shall eat matzos.” As Rashi explains (Pesachim 28b), the verse of “In the evening you shall eat matzos” would be superfluous, [if not to establish eating matzos on the first night as an obligation for all generations]. For it already said (v. 8), “They shall eat it [the korbon Pesach] with matzos and bitter herbs,” [which teaches us the obligation of matzoh in the time of the Beis Hamikdash]. And [as regards eating matzoh as something optional,] the first night is already included in our verse, “You must eat matzos for seven days,” since “days” includes the nights, as we learn from, “Until the twenty-first day of the month” (v. 18).

When [that soul] has its full faculties and knowledge. I.e., one who transgresses intentionally. The Mechilta states this clearly.

The word מקרא is an infinitive. . . It means declaring holiness. I.e., you shall declare it holy with regard to [wearing] special clothing, eating, and drinking. But מקרא should not be explained as an adjective, meaning that the day is declared holy by Hashem. For then, it should have said היום (the day) rather than ביום (on the day).

It, but not the preparations for it. . . [Rashi knows this] because it says הוא , which implies only the work itself but not the preparations. Yet it also says לכם , which implies that [work may be done for] all your needs, [including the preparations]. How is this [self-contradictory verse to be explained]? Where only the work itself is permitted, is when the preparations can be done before Yom Tov. And where even the preparations are permitted, is when the preparations cannot be done before Yom Tov.

Even for an animal. You might think for non-Jews as well. . . You might ask: Perhaps the opposite is true, [i.e., for non-Jews it is permitted and for animals it is not]? The answer is: It is more logical to include [our domesticated] animals in the permission to do work, for they are dependent on us [i.e., we are responsible] to feed them, and to exclude non-Jews, for they are not dependent on us [i.e., we are not responsible] to feed them.

If it has begun to rise, pat it with cold moisture. I.e., when dough merely begins to rise, this does not make it into chametz. Nevertheless, if the matzoh begins to rise and is on its way to become chametz, [the woman kneading it] should place her hands in cold water and smear the surface of the dough to cool it down. This is [not because of the prohibition to eat chametz, rather] because of the obligation of “You must be vigilant.”

Do not read it the matzos, but rather, the mitzvos. [Rashi offers this midrashic explanation because] according to its simple meaning, [explained in the previous entry,] the verse is out of place. It should come right after (v. 15), “You must eat matzos for seven days,” and teach that we must vigilantly guard them from becoming chametz. The Torah separated these two verses with other laws, to indicate that “You must be vigilant” is not limited to matzos. (Devek Tov)

Why is this said. . . You might ask: Does this verse not imply that eating matzoh is obligatory for all seven days, yet before, Rashi clearly explained that for all seven days it is optional? The answer is: Rashi indeed said before that eating matzoh is optional, as that was the verse’s subject. But here, the subject is the removal of leaven from the home, as is seen in the following verse, “For seven days no leaven may be found in your homes.” And when Rashi mentioned “seven days,” he was not referring to: “You must eatmatzos for seven days” (v. 15), rather he was referring to: “For seven days no leaven may be found” (v. 19). And if it said only, “Seven days no leaven may be found,” I might think that this applies only during the daytime, but not at night. (See Re”m for further elaboration.)

From where do we know [that this applies] to [your properties] outside your house? “Your boundaries” (v. 13:7) comes [to extend the prohibition to areas] outside the house, such as in the fields and vineyards, [although houses are included in “your boundaries”].

A non-Jew’s chametzwhich is by a Jew. . . I.e., the Jew does not transgress the prohibition of having chametz. Also the prohibition of “your boundaries” (v. 13:7) applies only when you have rights to the chametz, as is learned from “in your homes.” This is because “in your homes” would otherwise be superfluous, [since homes are included in “your boundaries”]. Thus, “in your homes” comes to exclude [cases where the Jew has no rights to the chametz, such as] a non-Jew’s chametz stored by a Jew.

But has it not already provided for the kares punishment regarding chametz?! Rashi is saying that the prohibition on שאור may be derived through a fortiori reasoning, as follows: חמץ is not so strongly leavened that it can ferment other dough. Nevertheless, one who eats it is liable for kares. Then regarding שאור , which is strongly leavened, all the more so that one who eats it should be liable for kares.

This is the warning against the eating of yeast. For the punishment was already learned from (v. 19), “Whoever eats chametz that soul shall be cut off. . ..”

Includes its mixture. Re”m discussed Rashi’s comment at length and found difficulty with it. But see Maseches Chulin 43a, and the commentary of Rashi and Tosafos there (beginning with והא אמר רבי יוחנן ), discussing the Mishnah of אלו כשרות . Re”m found difficulty with Rashi only because he overlooked this. (Nachalas Yaakov)

This comes to teach. . . Rashi is answering the question: It is obvious [that the mitzvah of matzoh applies in all places], for matzoh is an obligation upon the person, [not upon the land], and therefore applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside it. Rashi answers: “This comes to teach. . .”

This excludes Maaser Sheni and the breads of the thanksgiving korbon. Rashi is saying that even if these were eaten in Jerusalem one cannot fulfill his obligation of eating matzoh — since they may not be eaten “in all your dwellings.”

Whoever owns lambs shall draw one of his own. Why does Rashi not explain this as he did above (v. 6), “Withdraw your hands from idol worship”? The answer is: Above, Rashi was not explaining the meaning of the verse, but the reason for the mitzvah. For that, a midrashic explanation is sufficient. But here Rashi is explaining the meaning of the verse; thus he offers its simple meaning (Re”m)

Three stalks are called a bunch. I.e., we should not explain that five stalks are needed. See Tosafos, Maseches Succah 13a. (Nachalas Yaakov)

This teaches that once dominion is given to the destroyer. . . This is not referring to the destroyer of the Egyptians, as every first-born was smitten although he did not step outside. Rather it is referring to the destroyer that comes out every night, as Rashi proceeds to explain, “Night is when the destroying angels have dominion.” The B’nei Yisrael were commanded not to go out this night in particular — although all nights have the same danger — so the Egyptians would not say, “Just as we were smitten, they were also smitten,” and then they would say that Moshe is a liar. For they would not know that the regular destroyer did it, whereas Moshe was speaking of the special destroyer who smote the Egyptian first-born.

For the foretelling of the redemption. . . Rashi inferred that there were three reasons for being thankful because it is written, ויקוד העם וישתחוו , “they bowed (singular) and prostrated themselves (plural).” The verse should have simply said ויקדו (and they bowed, plural), similar to וישתחוו (which is plural). Thus, the verse’s wording indicates that there was one bowing and two prostrations. (Maharshal)

In order to relate the praise. . . [For they did it] even though it was dangerous to slaughter Egypt’s god in front of their eyes.

Moshe and Aharon, too, did so. [This needed to be stated] otherwise we might think: Moshe and Aharon were not commanded because they did not need to be redeemed; and therefore they did not do so. Thus, the additional phrase of “They [also] did so” teaches us [that Moshe and Aharon also did it.] Otherwise it would be sufficient to say, “The B’nei Yisrael went and did.”

Wherever it states. . . It is written (Bereishis 19:24), “And Hashem made sulfur and fire rain down.” There, Re”m explained that wherever it says “and Hashem,” it means “He and His Divine court,” and enumerated other places where it says, “and Hashem.”

Because they rejoiced at the misfortune of the Israelites. See above (v. 11:5) for an explanation why two reasons are needed.

This teaches us that he made the rounds. . . Why did Pharaoh’s servants not wake him up? The plague was mainly on them, as it is written, “For there was no house. . .” The answer is: They had already said, “Send these men out. . . do you not yet realize. . .” (v. 10:7), but Pharaoh did not listen to them. Therefore [they despaired of persuading him and] he needed to wake them. (Nachalas Yaakov)

An alternate explanation: The Egyptian women were unfaithful. . . This raises a difficulty: Now too, the Egyptians will say that Moshe is a liar, for sons who are not first-born were dying. The answer is: Moshe will tell them that they are all first-born because the women were unfaithful. And all this was in order to show the Egyptians’ lowliness and impurity. (Maharshal)

And bore children from single, unmarried men. . . Rashi is explaining that רווקים means פנוים (unmarried).

This tells us that he went. . . Otherwise it should say, “He called אל משה , as it does in “Hashem called אל משה (to Moshe) and spoke to him.” But למשה means, “for Moshe.”

Pray for me that I do not die, for I am a first-born. Otherwise, why would Pharaoh need their blessing, since he sent the people out [and consequently needed not fear further plagues]?

The Egyptians did not let them procrastinate long enough to become chametz. But [the reason they took it before it was leavened] was not on account of the prohibition against chametz, because for the Pesach in Egypt there was no prohibition against having chametz in the home. Alternatively, Rashi’s comment may be understood as follows. He is answering the question: Why is it written, “Before it was leavened”? It should have said, “Before they baked it.” Therefore Rashi explains: “The Egyptians did not let them. . .” I.e., by writing “Before it was leavened,” the Torah is informing us the extent to which the Egyptians were hurrying B’nei Yisrael.

What was left of their matzoh and maror. But not what was left of the korbon Pesach, because any leftovers from the korbon Pesach must be burned. [see 12:10]

These were even dearer to them than silver and gold. Otherwise, why should “clothing” even be mentioned? If they lent them silver and gold, surely clothing. Thus we [must say: on the contrary,] “these were even dearer. . .” However, the Maharshal explains: Since Hashem did not command them to borrow clothing, perforce it was not so valuable. Hashem said to request only silver and gold, to uphold His promise of, “Afterwards they will leave with great wealth.” They borrowed the clothing on their own, since a pauper who lacks clothing does not look to acquire silver and gold, but coats and shirts. And what does it mean that the clothing was even dearer to the Egyptians? It means that it was a great and serious matter for the Egyptians to lend it to them. This is because the Egyptian clothing and customs were different from those of B’nei Yisrael, so when they lent them clothing they knew it would not be returned since B’nei Yisrael would make alterations to the clothing. Nevertheless, they lent it to them. Therefore Rashi explains that the clothing was “even dearer to them,” i.e., to the Egyptians, but not to B’nei Yisrael. Whereas the silver and gold was not as dear to the Egyptians, since they thought it would be returned.

The later in the verse, the dearer. This raises a difficulty: In the verse mentioning “Wheat and barley” (Devarim 8:8), the more important item comes first. The answer is: [Rashi is not stating a general rule. And] here, the more important item cannot be the first one, as then the latter items would not need to be mentioned at all. For if the Egyptians lent the valuable items, surely they would lend the cheap ones. (Maharshal)

Even that which they did not request of them. . . [Rashi knows this] because at first it is written, “And they requested of the Egyptians” (v. 35), and then it is written, “Hashem granted the people favor,” telling us that they found favor, and their request was granted. If so, why does Scripture need to write here, “And they granted their request”? It must come to tell you that they gave them even things that they did not request.

[The distance between them was] 120 mil. [Rashi knows this] because Scripture did not need to write, “From Ramseis,” since we already know that they were in Ramseis, as it is written in Parshas Vayigash (Bereishis 47:11). Thus, “From Ramseis” is mentioned only to tell us that they traveled a distance of 120 mil in a moment.

Who were twenty years and older. [Rashi knows this] because in Parshas Bamidbar, the males are counted from twenty years and older, and the number is similar to this one — and both counts were taken within one year. We cannot suggest that here they were counted from thirteen years old, because then the count in Parshas Bamidbar would be less, as they would not all turn twenty within one year. Thus, the count here must have been from twenty years and older.

This is what is explicitly told in the Prophets. The word קבלה refers to the Prophets.

And thirty years passed from when the decree of “between the pieces” was decreed. . . Re”m explains in Parshas Lech Lecha that Avraham was seventy at the decree of “between the pieces,” and so it says in Seder Olam.

It is continuously protected from destructive forces. Rashi is answering the question: What does “this night remains a vigil for all generations” mean? Surely, this actual night of the Exodus does not remain forever. Rashi answers: “It is continuously protected.” I.e., every year when this night comes, it is protected from destructive forces.

This section was told to them on the 14th of Nissan. For if it was told on the first of the month, it should have been written above with (v. 12:2), “This month shall be [reckoned] to you,” if they were both stated at the same time.

A circumcised Arab. . . See Re”m, who discusses Rashi’s comments on תושב ושכיר at length, and reconciles them with what is stated in the Gemara.

From this [we infer] that whoever eats it may eat it in two places. You might ask: How does Rashi know [that in this verse, “house” means “group,” whereas in the earlier verse (v. 7), it means “place”]? Perhaps it is the opposite: בבית אחד יאכל means as it sounds, [and “house” means “place.” Thus, they shall not continue eating it in a different place from where they started]. And על הבתים אשר יאכלו אותו בהם (v.7) teaches that the group is allowed to break up [before they start eating,] and eat it separately in two different houses. Re”m answers: Since our verse is vocalized יֵאָכֵל (it must be eaten), perforce it refers to the korbon Pesach. [This way the emphasis is on the korbon Pesach itself, teaching that it must remain in one group, although the eaters themselves may move from place to place, as long as they stay as one group]. For if it was referring to [the eater of the korbon Pesach, that he shall not move from house to] house, then it would be vocalized יֹאכַל (he must eat it). Then it would mean that its members shall eat it in one house [and shall not continue eating in a different place, even if they stay as one group].

[A bone] that is edible as, for example. . . Rashi is explaining that יֵאָכֵל refers also to the prohibition of breaking bones. It is as if Scripture had written, “A bone that may be eaten, you must not break.” (Re”m)

The Torah tells us: “The entire community of Yisrael.” I.e., even if they are not from the same family [they may make a group].

Regarding the other mitzvos of the Torah. You might ask: Why should we think converts are different? They are full Jews! Granted that the previous verse needed to equate the convert to the native born regarding bringing the korbon Pesach on the 14th of Nisan, since we might have thought that he brings the korbon Pesach right when he converts. Thus it is written, “Like the native born,” as Rashi explained. But why should converts be different regarding the other mitzvos of the Torah? The answer is: The fact that the Torah needed to equate them regarding the korbon Pesach on the fourteenth [of Nisan] might have led us to say that they are different regarding other mitzvos. (Re”m)