What is the definition of a "'Ben Neichar?
Rashi, Ramban, and Targum Yonasan: It is a Yisrael who is estranged from Torah and Mitzvos; 1 or a Nochri, whose ways are estranged from their Father in Heaven. 2
Targum Onkelos: It is a Yisrael Meshumad. (one who converted to another religion).
Mechilta: As we find in Yechezkel, "Kol Ben Neichar Erel Lev" (Yechezkel 44:9).
See Ramban, who elaborates on the meaning of the word.
When was this Parshah said?
Rashi and Ramban: On the fourteenth of Nisan. 1
Ramban: As the Torah concludes, that Yisrael carried out Moshe and Aharon's instructions (12:50). Moreover, whenever the Torah uses the word "Zeh" or "Zos," it refers to something that is visible, to which one can point a finger (See also Sifsei Chachamim).
What is the basic difference between those details of the Korban Pesach listed in this Parshah - "Zos Chukas ha'Pasach" (12:43-50), and those written earlier in "Ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh Lachem" (12:3-13)?
Seforno: All the Mitzvos mentioned here (in connection with those who eat the Pesach and with the location) apply to later generations as well. 1 Many of the Mitzvos contained in the earlier Parshah, however, applied to Pesach Mitzrayim exclusively (such as placing the blood on the lintel and the doorposts, and eating the Pesach in haste).
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 38, p. 142): The section that begins here outlines the prohibitions associated with the Korban Pesach. Refer to 12:43:3.1:2.
What is the word "[Lo Yochal] Bo" coming to exclude?
Pesachim 96a: It excludes (from the prohibition) Terumah and Ma'aser Sheini 1 -- which a Ben-Neichar is permitted to eat.
See Torah Temimah, note 228.
Is a Ben Neichar permitted to eat Matzah and Maror?
Moshav Zekenim: If he is even permitted to eat Terumah and Ma'aser Sheini, 1 even though they have some Kedushah - how much more so Matzah and Maror, which have no Kedushah at all!
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "This is the law of the Pesach - This section was told to them on 14 Nisan." How does Rashi know this?
Mizrachi: It is clear from the Mechilta that the laws of this section apply [even] to the first Pesach in Mitzrayim; they could not have been said only now (after the Korban was finished)! In addition, verse 12:50 will tell us that Bnei Yisrael did as they had been commanded. It must have been taught prior to the offering of the Korban, on the 14th of Nisan. Nor were these laws taught to them already on Rosh Chodesh; we see that the Torah interrupts the section of "Ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh Lachem" (12:3-11) with the section of, "It was at midnight" (12:29), and that of, "Bnei Yisrael travelled" (12:37) - which both took place on the 15th. 1 This section must have been taught only on the day when these laws would be relevant - the 14th of Nisan. 2
Gur Aryeh: Only some of the laws of Korban Pesach were taught in the section of "Ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh Lachem" (see 12:3-11), whereas these laws are not included there. They must have been commanded at a later date - on the 14th.
Rashi writes: "This section was told to them on 14 Nisan." If so, why was it not written in chronological sequence, before Makas Bechoros (12:29)?
Ramban: Following the previous Parshah, "Ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh Lachem" (Shemos 12:1-20), which was said on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, the Torah first tells us (in 12:21) that Moshe immediately gathered the elders, and promised them that they would be redeemed on the fifteenth; and that Yisrael believed him and acknowledged the information (12:27). Then it relates the events of the night of Makas Bechoros, to teach us how Hashem fulfilled His promise. It now continues where it left off, and concludes the Dinim of the Korban Pesach.
Mizrachi #1: Parshas Ha'Chodesh already told us that "I shall pass through the Land of Egypt... and strike every firstborn" (12:12), so the Torah skips ahead at that point to describe those events. It now returns to fill in the Halachos of the Korban Pesach [which were commanded just before offering it].
Mizrachi #2; Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 38, p. 142): It is this deviation from chronological order, which tells us that [unlike "Ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh Lachem,"] this section was not given over on Rosh Chodesh. 1
This is significant for the reason given in 12:43:3.1:1.
Rashi writes: "This section was told to them on 14 Nisan." Why, in fact, wasn't it taught along with the other laws of Korban Pesach -- on Rosh Chodesh Nisan?
Gur Aryeh: This section informs the Bnei Yisrael that an Arel (someone uncircumcised) is forbidden to partake of the Korban Pesach (12:44, 48). Hashem purposely delayed telling them about this, until it was the very day of the Korban, the eve of their departure. 1 Thus, the blood of the Pesach blended with the blood of the Milah. 2 As the Navi says, "And I said to you, by your bloods (pl.) you shall live!" (Yechezkel 16:6). 3
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 38, p. 142): Parshas "Ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh Lachem" (12:3-11) taught how to properly perform the Korban Pesach, in terms of its Mitzvos Aseh. 4 The section that begins here teaches the prohibitions associated with the Korban Pesach. These are not part of the directions for carrying it out.
Gur Aryeh: Had they been informed on Rosh Chodesh that they needed to do Milah, they would have done so immediately.
For more about the relationship between Pesach and Milah according to Maharal, refer to 12:6:2.02.
Rashi to 12:6: It was the merit of these two Mitzvos, that saved Bnei Yisrael from Makas Bechoros.
Maharal: The Lo-Sa'aseh of "Do not eat it raw" is also stated in "Ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh Lachem," because it leads to the directive, "... rather, roasted by fire" (12:9). Similarly, the prohibition, "Do not leave any of it over until morning," leads to "... whatever is left... burn in the fire" (12:10).
Rashi writes: "'Kol Ben Neichar (any foreigner)' - [I.e., one] whose actions have become estranged to his Father in Heaven... an apostate Yisrael." Who is disqualified as such?
Rashi writes: "'Kol Ben Neichar' - ... This includes both a Gentile, and an apostate Yisrael." But we already know that a Gentile is disqualified from Korban Pesach, from the verse "Toshav v'Sachir" (see Rashi to 12:45)?
Gur Aryeh #1: Although we could 1 in fact derive this from a Kal va'Chomer (... If a Gentile who resides by or works for a Yisrael is disqualified, certainly so the average Gentile); sometimes the Torah anyway writes such a law explicitly.
Gur Aryeh #2: Indeed, our verse is only necessary to disqualify the apostate Yisrael.
Mizrachi answers differently, and tries to resolve all of the verses. Gur Aryeh questions his approach.
Rashi writes: "'Kol Ben Neichar' - ... This includes both a Gentile, and an apostate Yisrael." Once our verse is written, why do we need the verse, "A Toshav or Sachir may not eat of it" (12:45 - which Rashi explains as referring to a Ger Toshav and Gentile, respectively)?
Mizrachi: Were it not for "Toshav v'Sachir" (12:45), I might have thought that our Pasuk excludes only a literal foreigner (and not a Yisrael Meshumad).
Gur Aryeh: "Toshav v'Sachir" teaches that even if the Gentile resides by or works for a Yisrael, he is disqualified from partaking.
Rashi writes: "'Kol Ben Neichar' - ... This includes both a foreigner, and an apostate Yisrael." How can two disqualifications be derived from one verse?
Gur Aryeh: The term "Neichar" alone means a Gentile in most contexts. Our verse adds "Kol [Ben Neichar]," to include "all who are estranged, etc." 1
Mizrachi would not face this question, as our verse is needed only for Yisrael Meshumad (12:43:4.2:2.)
