Searching for the Meaning of the Passover Sacrifice

See the opinion that Maimonides mentions in Guide of the Perplexed 3:31.

See the argument about Solomon presented in b. Sanhedrin 21b.

Guide of the Perplexed 3:26. See especially his remark: “Accordingly, in my opinion, all those who occupy themselves with something of these particulars are stricken with a prolonged madness in the course of which they do not put an end to an incongruity, but rather increase the number of incongruities” (S. Pines trans. [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963], p. 509.

Commentators argue whether the words בן שנה mean that the animal is before its first birthday or after. For example, see ibn Ezra’s longer commentary to Exodus 12:5 and Arnold Ehrlich, Miqra ki-feshuto to the same verse. Ehrlich offers the interesting suggestion that younger animals are preferable since they would not yet be sexually active. See also William Propp, Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, the Anchor Bible, volume 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1999), p. 389.

The exegetes struggled with resolving this verse with the one in Deuteronomy 16:7 that implies it should be boiled. Editor’s note: See discussion in Robert Harris, “Korban Chagigah from the Torah to the Seder Plate,” TheTorah (2015).

For example, Brevard Childs concludes that “it seems increasingly evident that both the Passover and the maṣṣôt traditions stemmed from pre-Israelite cultic practices and were later adapted by Israel for her own needs.” Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), p. 187.

John Durham, Exodus (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987), p. 159. Arnold Ehrlich (Exod 12:8) surprisingly asserts that unleavened bread is more desirable than leavened, and for this reason it was chosen for the holiday of freedom.

Nahum Sarna, Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Ancient Israel (New York: Schocken, 1986), p. 89.

Propp, p. 396. Later in the same text, Propp admits that “the Bible never describes the Paschal sacrifice as vicarious” (p. 438).

See e.g. Nahum Sarna’s explanation of maror in Exodus 12 in The JPS Commentary on Exodus: “Probably referred originally to the kind of pungent condiment with which pastoral nomads habitually season their meals of roasted flesh.”

Propp, p. 394. He mentions one further theory, which he himself labels “implausible,” that “the herbs were a mild toxin administered as an ordeal.”

Ehrlich, ibid.

See also Rashbam’s commentary to Exodus 12:9 and 12:46. Perhaps when Rashbam wrote: כל ענייני אכילה הללו—all these details about the eating,” he meant also the instruction that the bread that accompanies the meat should be unleavened. Following the logic of 12:39, when in a hurry, people prepare and eat bread that did not have time to leaven.

Other commentators either follow Rashbam’s lead or reach the same conclusions independently. See the notes in my Peirush ha-Rashbam al ha-Torah (Jerusalem: Chorev, 2009), volume 1, page 206.

Sefer ha-hinukh, mitzvah 16.

Propp (p. 418) disagrees: “Ehrlich’s argument that sucking marrow is unworthy of freemen smacks of subjectivity.” Neither Ehrlich nor Propp attributes the explanation toSefer ha-hinukh.

See, for example, Gen 46:34 and Exod 8:22, and Rashi’s comments to both verses. Editor’s note: For a discussion of the Torah’s claim about Egyptian worship of sheep, see Jan Assmann and Zev Farber, “Sacrificing a Lamb in Egypt,” TheTorah (2016).

Ibid.—כל זה דרך בזיון שיאכלוהו עם דבר רע ומר.

Commentary to 12:6: כדי שיראו המצרים את יראתם קשורה בבושת ובביזוי בבתי היהודים וישמעוה צועקת ואין מושיע לה.

Baalei ha-Tosafot al ha-Torah to verse 9.

A critical edition of the text of Sefer Nitztzahon Yashan and an English translation are found in David Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages (Philadelphia: JPS, 1979).

The Hebrew of the passage quoted is found in Berger, on p. 13 of the Hebrew section, and the English on p. 52 of the English section.

See, for example, John 19:36 and I Corinthians 5:7.

See the many sources cited by Berger, pp. 243-244.

The logic is somewhat akin to what Rashi often writes, e.g. in his commentary to Gen 1:1: אין המקרא הזה אומר אלא דרשני. In other words, since the peshat is unsatisfying, another level of interpretation is required.

Berger, page 54 of the English section and page 14 of the Hebrew section.

The same debate occurs with the suffering servant in Isaiah 52-53. Editor’s note: For another example of the Jewish response to Christian use of “Jesus as paschal lamb” imagery, see Malka Simkovich, “Passover Becomes about Matzah when the Paschal Lamb Becomes Associated with Jesus.” TheTorah (2014).