Who is the one who is permitted to eat the Korban Pesach, after the Eved has been circumcised?
Rashi #1 (according to Rebbi Yehoshua 1 ) and Mechilta: The master.
Rashi #2 (according to Rebbi Eliezer 2 ), Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: The Eved.
Who holds that the Bris Milah of an Eved (or of a son) prevents the master (or father) from eating the Pesach. See Oznayim la'Torah 'DH 'Az Yochal Bo,' who explains why the Torah writes "Az Yochal Bo" and not 'Az Tochal Bo.'
Who holds that the Milah of an Eved does not prevent the master from partaking. It is not clear, however, why we do not have a proof from Pasuk 12:48, that a father who has an uncircumcised son (or a master, an uncircumcised slave), may not participate in Korban Pesach (See Rashi to Yevamos 70b, DH 'Milas Zecharav va'Avadav').
Why does the Pasuk only mention an Eved who was 'Miknas Kesef,' and not one was a 'Yelid Bayis' (who was born to an Eved that one already owned)?
Oznayim la'Torah: Because Yisrael who were themselves slaves in Egypt, did not own slaves. The Pasuk must therefore refer to slaves that they would purchase - even between the Shechitah and the eating. 1
Oznayim la'Torah: Otherwise, they would not even have been able to Shecht the Pesach (due to the uncircumcised Eved). And the Egyptians would have willingly sold themselves as slaves, particularly if they were Bechorim, to avoid being killed during Makas Bechoros - which they knew would take place that night.
The Torah mentions the hour of eating the Pesach with regard to an Eved who is uncircumcised ("Az Yochal Bo"), but the hour of offering it with regard to a son ("v'Az Yikrav la'Asoso" - 12:48). What will be the Din in the reverse case - an Eved who is uncircumcised when the Korban is brought, or a son when it is eaten?
Yevamos 71a: We learn from a Gezerah Shavah "Az," "Az" (from these two verses), that the prohibition extends to where the Eved is not circumcised at the time of the Avodah (according to R. Yehoshua), or one's son at the time of eating. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 232.
Seeing as "Miknas Kesef" includes even the Eved of a woman in the prohibition, why does the Torah write "Eved Ish"?
Mechilta: To exclude the uncircumcised Eved of a Katan, who does not prevent the Katan from eating the Korban Pesach. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 229, who discusses a different text in the Mechilta, which includes both Eved Ishah and Eved Katan in the prohibition of the words "Miknas Kesef."
Is the prohibition concerning an Eved Arel confined to Pesach Mitzrayim?
But it was especially significant to the first Korban Pesach, as the impetus for Bnei Yisrael to perform Milah and thus merit redemption. See 12:43:3.1:1 and 12:6:2.02.
What is the word "[Az Yochal] Bo" coming to exclude?
Pesachim 96a: It comes to exclude (from the prohibition) Terumah - which a Kohen is permitted to eat, even if he has a son or an Eved who is not circumcised.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "... Failure to circumcise one's Avadim prevents one from eating Korban Pesach." In fact, it disqualifies him from slaughtering his Korban Pesach in the first place (see the beginning of verse 12:48)! In what case is our verse needed, in order to disqualify him from eating it as well?
Mizrachi (from Yevamos 71a): If one purchased an uncircumcised Eved Kena'ani on the 14th in the afternoon, after having already slaughtered the Korban Pesach, he is now disqualified from partaking of it, due to our verse.
Rashi writes that according to R. Yehoshua, our Pasuk means that failure to perform Milah on one's slave prevents the master from eating the Korban Pesach. But if that is so, then certainly one who is himself uncircumcised may not partake! Why then is verse 12:48 necessary - "v'Chol Arel Lo Yochal Bo"?
Tosfos ha'Shalem (2, citing the Riva); Mizrachi: Because, if not for "v'Chol Arel Lo Yochal Bo," we would have learned our verse like R. Eliezer 1 - that the Milah of the slave prevents [only] the slave from eating it. 2
Gur Aryeh: One may not base a Lo Sa'aseh, (punishable by Malkos,) upon logic (Ein Mazhirin Min ha'Din). Therefore, we need an explicit Pasuk that forbids an Arel to partake.
Rashi writes that according to R. Eliezer, the Pasuk teaches us that Milah of the slave prevents the slave from eating the Pesach. Why is this Limud necessary; if even a Yisrael's own Milah is Me'akev (12:48), how much more so that of a slave!
Riva (citing Rashi in Yevamos 71a): The Pasuk teaches us that even if the slave is a Giv'oni (a nation that circumcises themselves), he may not eat until one has performed the Hatafas Dam Bris (taking blood from the location of the Milah for the sake of Mitzvas Milah).
Mizrachi: Were it not for our verse, I may have thought that a master must circumcise his Avadim for the sake of Mitzvas Milah alone -- not merely to allow them to partake of the Korban Pesach. 1 Our verse allows the Eved to partake, even if the master circumcised him only for this purpose.
Gur Aryeh #1: Rebbi Eliezer holds that a Ger that has only performed Milah, but not Tevilah, is [already] a Ger (Yevamos 46a). Our Pasuk is needed for the same inference regarding Avadim - 'As soon as you circumcise the Eved, even before his immersion (to become an Eved), he may already eat Korban Pesach.'
Gur Aryeh #2: According to Rebbi Eliezer, our verse teaches that for an Eved Kena'ani to partake of the Korban Pesach is optional, not obligatory. Our verse then means, '... if you circumcise him, he may eat of it [if he so wishes].'
Mizrachi: According to Rebbi Eliezer, a Yisrael may in theory hold Avadim Arelim in his possession; whereas Rebbi Yehoshua disagrees.
