What is the difference between a "Toshav" and a "Sachir"?
Rashi, Targum Onkelos, Targum Yonasan and Mechilta: A Toshav is a Ger Toshav (who undertakes to observe all the Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach); and a Sachir is a Nochri (i.e. an Aravi Mahul or a Giv'oni Mahul, who are Pasul even though they are not [physically] Areilim). 1
Ramban (according to the conclusion of the Gemara in Yevamos 71a): A Toshav is a Ger who made Bris Milah but not Tevilah.
See Ramban's objection to this explanation, and Rav Chavel's footnotes. See also Torah Temimah, note 234.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that "Toshav" is a Ger Toshav, and "Sachir" is a Nochri Mahul. Why is this different than the words "Toshav" and "Sachir" regarding Terumah (see Vayikra 22:10) -- where "Toshav" means an Eved Nirtza (an Eved Ivri who serves until Yovel), and "Sachir" is an Eved Ivri serving for six years?
Riva (to 12:51); Mizrachi (from Yevamos 70a): Because with regard to Terumah, it is reasonable to explain it like that; since an Eved Ivri is not the Kohen's property, 1 he is therefore forbidden to eat Terumah. Whereas regarding Pesach, since an Eved Ivri is a full-fledged Yisrael, there is no reason why he should not be allowed to eat it.
Mizrachi (and Yevamos ibid.): His self is not "owned" by his master (i.e. there is no Kinyan ha'Guf). We see this from the fact that in contrast to the Eved Ivri, a Kohen's Eved Kena'ani may eat Terumah.
Rashi writes that "Sachir" is not needed for a Nochri, since the Torah already disqualifies an Arel. He should have said that it already disqualified a Ben Neichar (12:43)?
Riva: Rashi gave the simpler reason, even though the real source is Ben Neichar. 1
Riva: The Gemara too, sometimes presents a simpler source, even if it is not the real one.
Rashi writes (based on the Midrash): "'Toshav' - a Ger Toshav. 'Sachir' - a Nochri." The Gemara in Yevamos 70a, however, deems this Pasuk as extra (so we can then use it for a Gezerah Shavah, teaching that a Kohen Arel may not eat Terumah). If so, it seemingly learns "Toshav v'Sachir" as referring to Eved Ivri! Are these sources arguing? And if so, let the Pasuk say explicitly that "Toshav v'Sachir" may eat - and still make the same Gezerah Shavah!
Mizrachi: See Tosafos to Yevamos 70b, DH Ela. The Gemara does learn "Toshav v'Sachir" as referring to Nochrim (like the Mechilta cited by Rashi). It is nonetheless available for derivation, because these are no different than Arel and Ben Neichar, which we are already told are disqualified. 1
But Mizrachi himself questions this answer; see Mizrachi to 12:43.
Rashi writes: " Toshav ... Sachir... - Why need they be taught; are they not Arelim [excluded by verse 12:48]?" In fact, the Gemara (Yevamos 70a) views this Pasuk as extra, for interpretation! (See 12:45:153) Why then does Rashi explain its meaning at all?
Gur Aryeh: Although The Pasuk is extra for interpretation, its literal meaning cannot lead to false conclusions! If the Pasuk implies that a Toshav Nochri may not eat - whereas a Yisrael in similar circumstances may eat, it must be discussing a Nochri who is not physically an Arel, such as an Aravi or Giv'oni.
Rashi writes: "... Rather, [it excludes someone] such as an Arab or Gibeonite who is circumcised." Ramban asks - The Gemara (Yevamos 71a) concludes that such an individual is nonetheless called an Arel (despite his circumcision- see Nedarim 31b). Why does Rashi explain differently?
Mizrachi: Only regarding Nedarim is an Aravi Mahul still called an Arel, because in matters of Nedarim, we follow the common parlance (Leshon Bnei Adam). As for Korban Pesach, however, he is not called an Arel; such that our verse remains necessary. 1
Gur Aryeh: The Gemara on Yevamos 71a is learning according to Rabbi Akiva - that our Pasuk is not needed for a Gezerah Shavah about Terumah, but rather for its own sake. That is why the Gemara asks why a Pasuk is needed for an Aravi or Giv'oni. 2 Our Rashi, however, follows Rebbi Eliezer, 3 who needs our Pasuk for a Gezerah Shavah. Nonetheless, he must still have a literal meaning for it! Our Pasuk remains extra. Whereas any Nochri is by definition an Arel, we now infer that only a circumcised Aravi is disqualified - as opposed to a circumcised Toshav-Yisrael, who is permitted.
Although our Gemara does not answer this way (i.e., it accepts the challenge from Maseches Nedarim) it is only to resolve the Pesukim for the questioner's point of view. See earlier in Mizrachi for an additional answer.
Gur Aryeh: The Gemara concludes that according to Rebbi Akiva, our Pasuk excludes a Ger with Milah but no Tevilah, and a Yisrael born circumcised who did not receive Hatafas Dam Bris.
Gur Aryeh: Rebbi Eliezer is closer to the simple meaning of the text. To explain our Pasuk as referring to excludes a Ger with Milah but no Tevilah, would be forced.
