What does "Kol Zachar" incorporate?
Oznayim la'Torah (citing Tosfos to Yevamos 48a): It incorporates children that are born to the Ger after his conversion. 1
Oznayim la'Torah: Rashi there seems to learn that small uncircumcised children that he fathered before his conversion - whom he is able to circumcise - prevent him from eating the Pesach. Refer to 12:48:1.3:1.
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) phrase, "v'Hayah k'Ezrach ha'Aretz"?
Rashi: To teach us that a Ger brings a Korban Pesach on the fourteenth of Nisan together with everybody else. We would otherwise have thought that he brings it as soon as he converts. 1
Like Yisrael did in Egypt.
Seeing as Geirim were neither slaves in Egypt, nor did they leave Egypt together with Yisrael, why are they obligated to bring the Korban Pesach?
Oznayim la'Torah: Because the Korban Pesach comes to commemorate (not so much the physical freedom that we attained that night, but) first and foremost, our spiritual redemption 1 from the Tum'ah of Egypt. 2 And that is something which a Ger 3 shares with an Ezrach.
Oznayim la'Torah: Which we attained on first direct contact with Hashem, when He came down to Egypt on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan. Refer to 12:14:2:3*.
Who also went through a similar experience when he converted.
Seeing as when eating the Pesach, a Ger is unable to say 'Pesach... Al she'Pasach Ha'Kadosh-Baruch-Hu Al Batei Avoseinu,' how can he bring the Korban Pesach?
What are the implications of "Himol Lo Kol Zachar"?
Rashi (to Yevamos 70b): It implies that if the Ger has a son or an Eved who is subject to Milah, 1 then as the father or master, he is forbidden to offer the Pesach until he has circumcised him.
Yerushalmi Pesachim, 3:7: It teaches us that, someone who has both a son who needs to be circumcised, and a Korban Pesach waiting to be brought, must give precedence to the former.
Our Pasuk forbids one from offering the Pesach, if he has not yet performed Milah on his son. What if someone has already slaughtered the Korban Pesach, and only then the time to circumcise his son arrives?
Yevamos 71a: We learn via a Gezerah Shavah "Az," "Az [Yochal Bo]" (12:44 - in connection with an Eved), that even if one has already offered the Pesach, he is now forbidden to eat it, 1 unless the Milah is performed. 2
See 12:44:1.2:1 and note.
As for how this would be possible (that the time for a Milah would begin in the middle of Erev Pesach afternoon), see Yevamos 71a; one example is if the baby had been sick.
Conceptually, why is someone uncircumcised (an Arel) forbidden to partake of the Korban Pesach?
Gur Aryeh (to 12:6): Korban Pesach is called "Avodah" (13:5); and the Bris Milah is the brand of our Avdus [to Hashem]. 1 Lacking this permanent symbol of Milah, one's Avodah would be mere happenstance (Ara'i) rather than lasting (Kavu'a). Hence, an Arel may not partake of it.
Gur Aryeh (ibid.): As we thank Hashem in Birkas ha'Mazon, "... For your covenant which you sealed upon our flesh." Also refer to 12:6:2.02.
Isn't someone who is himself uncircumcised, anyway excluded from the Korban Pesach as a "Ben Neichar" (12:43) - i.e. a Yisrael who is estranged from Torah and Mitzvos (see 12:43:4.1:1)?
Rashi and Rashbam: "Arel" incorporates even someone whose brothers died because of the Bris Milah, (who is forbidden to circumcise due to the danger, and who is therefore not a Ben Neichar). He is nevertheless an Arel, and forbidden to partake of the Korban Pesach.
Why does the Torah need to discuss both "Ben Neichar" (in 12:43) and "Arel"? Why can we not learn one from the other?
Pesachim 96a: Because an "Arel" is (physically) disgusting - whereas a Ben Neichar is not; while the heart of Ben Neichar is not directed to Hashem - whereas that of an Arel is. 1
Why is it necessary for our verse to forbid an Arel from partaking? We can infer this from a Kal va'Chomer (if according to Rebbi Yehoshua, the master of an uncircumcised Eved is disqualified - see Rashi to 12:44 - how much more so the Arel himself)!
Mizrachi (to 12:44): Were it not for our verse (12:48), we would interpret verse 12:44 as prohibiting only the Eved Arel himself, not his master. 1
Gur Aryeh (to 12:44): One may not base a Lo Sa'aseh (punishable by Malkos) upon logic - Ein Mazhirin Min ha'Din.
I.e., we would have learned verse 12:44 not like Rebbi Yehoshua, but rather like Rebbi Eliezer. See 12:44:1:1 and 12:44:151:1 and its notes.
If our Pasuk forbids even a Yisrael Arel from partaking, why do we need verse 12:44 (according to Rebbi Eliezer), to forbid an Eved Arel?
Refer to 12:44:152.
What does the word "[v'Chol Arel Lo Yochal] Bo" come to exclude?
