Vol 26.09 - Bo 3                         Spanish French Audio  Video

Hebrew Text:

Page 77   Page78   Page79   Page80   Page81   Page82   Page83   Page84  

At Pesach Mitzraim each person slaughtered the Korban Pesach in his home (Tosefta Pes. 8:7)
Explanation of Rambam's wording (Hil. Korban Pesach 10:15) concerning Pesach Mitzraim and the difference
from the Mishneh (Pesachim 96a). Explanation according to Chassidut.



Passover Offerings — Home and Away
One of the differences between the Paschal offerings brought in Egypt and subsequent Paschal offerings is that those brought in Egypt were sacrificed by each family within their homes, while the later Paschal offerings had to be sacrificed in the Mishkan or Beis HaMikdash.5

That the offerings in Egypt were brought by each family in its own home was not only permissible, but obligatory; each domicile had to have its own offering. Only when the number of individuals within one dwelling was not enough to consume the entire offering in one night was it permitted to join another family that lived nearby.6

Why did the Egyptian Paschal offering differ from all subsequent Paschal offerings?

The prophet Yechezkiel speaks of the Exodus from Egypt as the time of the Jewish nation’s birth.7 It follows that the offering brought in association with this exodus is related to the birth of the Jewish people and their subsequent function.

The Midrash informs us8 that “G‑d earnestly desired a dwelling in the nethermost level,” i.e., in this physical world. This was primarily accomplished, according to the Midrash, when the Mishkan was built, as the verse states:9 “And you shall make for Me a Sanctuary and I shall reside among them.”10

Our Sages comment:11 “It does not state ‘I shall reside in it,’ rather, ‘in them,’ that is to say, within each and every Jew.”

Since all verses are first and foremost to be understood in their simple sense,12 it follows that our Sages are telling us that in addition to the primary Mishkan and Beis HaMikdash, each Jew should seek to make his own personal Mishkan and Beis HaMikdash, so that G‑d will reside within him.

Since the verse states “in them” and not “in it,” it follows that the personal Mishkan and Beis HaMikdash is of great importance.

The reason is as follows: Although the degree of holiness that resided in the Mishkan and Beis HaMikdash far surpassed the holiness that could be contained by any individual Jew as a result of his service, the physical Mishkan and Beis HaMikdash alone could not fulfill G‑d’s desire for “a dwelling in the nethermost level.”

For the Mishkan and Beis HaMikdash were confined to specific sites, with most of creation existing outside these areas. It was thus necessary for the G‑dliness within the Mishkan and Beis HaMikdash to reach beyond their boundaries and emanate to the outside world.13

It is by drawing down the sanctity of the Mishkan and Beis HaMikdash within his own home, thus causing his own dwelling to become a domicile of holiness, that a Jew fulfills G‑d’s intent — the transformation of the entire world into a dwelling fit for Him.

This is why the Jews were to bring offerings within their own homes in Egypt, for since those offerings took place at the time of the nation’s birth, the purpose of that nationhood had to be stressed — that, through their personal spiritual service, they would have G‑d dwelling within each one of them, transforming their individual homes into a dwelling place for G‑d.

Once the Mishkan and Beis HaMikdash were built, however, the Paschal offering had to be brought there, for it was there that the highest degree of holiness resided.

Thus, the order of things changed: G‑d dwelled in those edifices, and as a result of that indwelling, He came to reside — through the Jews’ service “in them” — within each and every Jew, and within the world as a whole.

(From https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/92033/jewish/Chassidic-Dimension-Volume-3-Bo.htm)


5.Tosefta, Pesachim 8:7.
6.Shmos 12:3-4.
7.See Yechezkel 16 and commentaries.
8.Midrash Tanchuma, Naso 16.
9.Shmos 25:8.
10.See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXI, p. 150 and places cited there.
11.See Likkutei Torah, Naso 20b.
12.See Shabbos 63a.
13.See Midrash Tanchuma, Tetzaveh 6; Vayikra Rabbah31:7.


1.One of the differences between Pesach Mitzrayim (the Pesach which the Jews celebrated when they left Egypt) and Pesach Doros (the festival of Pesach celebrated by all subsequent generations) is (as it states in the Tosefta): At Pesach Mitzrayim  each person slaughtered the Korban Pesach (Pesach offering) in his home whereas at Pesach Dorot all Yisroel slaughtered (the Pesach offering) in one place (The Temple courtyard)

In simplicity, this means that Pesach Mitzrayim  contained a leniency in comparison with Pesach Mitzrayim :

  • In Pesach Dorot the slaughtering of the Pesach offering specifically had to be in the Temple courtyard ( Azarah). The innovation in this is that even when private altars (bamot) were allowed, one still was not allowed to offer the KP on a minor private altar (bamo ketana). Rather, one had to bring and offer it on the “communal altar” (Bamat HaTzibbur or Bama Gedolah)
  • However, at Pesach Mitzrayim , everyone was allowed to slaughter the Korban Pesach in his home.

However, if one examines the matter closely, there is an advantage (and stringency) of Pesach Mitzrayim :

That which: “everyone was allowed to slaughter (the Korban Pesach) in his home”  was not only an exemption (heter), i.e. that one may slaughter it in his home, but it was an obligation. Every household had to have a lamb. It is just that “if the household is too small for a lamb” – meaning that there were not enough people in the household to eat (the entire lamb) – then they could combine with another group. However, even in this situation, it had to be with a “neighbor who is nearest to his house

And this aspect – that one should offer a Korban (offering) in each house – is an innovation:

It appears, that even during the time when private altars were permitted, it was not in a manner that they made altars everywhere.  Rather they endeavored to choose specific places, that had an advantage and quality (segulah), and therefore were fitting to offer the korbanot in that place.

Similarly, Rambam states concerning the place of the Altar (in the Temple) that: 

“it is the location where Abraham built the Altar . . and  Noah built (an altar) on that location . .  It was also (the place) where Cain and Abel brought sacrifices and Adam, the first man, offered a sacrifice there”

We also find that Yaakov Avinu (Jacob) built an altar on the place where “G-d revealed Himself to him”, and similarly in other occurrences.

It is understood simply from this that –when one wants to bring a sacrifice to G-d, one chooses a location that is more propitious (m’sugal) to accept the resting of the Divine Presence (hashra'as haShechina) etc.

However, at Pesach Mitzrayim , the emphasis was that everyone should slaughter the korban specifically in each one’s house. Moreover, one should splash the blood on the “the two doorposts and on the lintel” which had the property of splashing the blood on the altar. As the Sages state: “They had three altars in M - the lintel and the two doorposts” (and according to another Tanna – “They had four – “The threshold, the lintel and the two doorposts”)

2. Moreover:

In the laws of Pesach, one finds an essential innovation regarding the law of a private altar (bamah) :

By Pesach Mitzrayim , there was the command that: “and you shall not go out, any man from the entrance of his house until morning.”  Plainly, the command was in order to protect the Jews from the “Destroyer (Mashchis)” (For the “Destroyer” had no dominion when one was inside the house).

We find however, in the Tosefta, that this is regarded as stringency in Pesach Mitzrayim  compared to Pesach Dorot -

“It states concerning Pesach Mitzrayim  that: “you shall not go out, any man from the entrance of his house until morning, which is not stated regarding Pesach Dorot . .  (and moreover): Regarding Pesach Mitzrayim , one had to sleep where one ate it, whereas regarding Pesach Dorot, one may eat it in one place and sleep in another place”

Therefore, it is understood that (the verse): “you shall not go out” is connected to the law of the Korban – namely that by Pesach Mitzrayim  there was a special law that, during the entire night, one had to remain in the house where one brought the offering (and ate it).

And this aspect is an essential innovation compared to offering the korban on a private altar:

We do not find that a minor private altar (Bamah Ketana) effects a special law in the place (and house) where one set up the altar. (Regarding a minor altar (Bamah Ketana), there is no law of “confines (mechitzos)” or of Pasul Yotzei (korbanot becoming unfit due to leaving their designated area)

Whereas, by the altar in the Tabernacle and certainly in the Temple, there is a law of the place of the Altar (connected with the “confines” of the Altar (area) etc.)

(Note: The law of “confines/mechitzos” is that all of the laws of the Altar are applied to an animal if it enters its “confines”. It also becomes immediately unfit upon leaving the confines of its designated area (Pasul Yotzei))

And how much more so in the Beit HaMikdash where the location of the Altar was “extremely exact”

Therefore, it comes out that by Pesach Mitzrayim , where the offering in the house effected  a law in the place – the korban had to be eaten specifically in the house where it was slaughtered  (and where the blood was splashed ). And also the sleeping (lina) had to be in the place where it was eaten, as aforementioned – Therefore the house and the place where they made the Pesach offering had a glimmer (m’ein) of the quality of the altar that was in the Tabernacle and the Temple.

3. This very aspect – that by Pesach Mitzrayim  there was an approximation of the nature and law of the Altar the way it was in the Tabernacle and the Temple (where there is a law of the place of the altar) – gives an additional explanation in another innovation which is found by Pesach Mitzrayim :

To preface:

Among the differences “between Pesach Mitzrayim  and Pesach Dorot” whaich are enumerated in the Mishnah is:

“And it (Pesach Mitzrayim ) requires sprinkling with the bunch of hyssop (agudas eizov) (and) on the lintel and to the two doorposts”

Rambam cites these differences enumerated in the Mishnah, however he differs from the wording of the Mishnah. Instead of “And it requires sprinkling (haza’ah) with a bunch of hyssop etc.” he states:

“And it requires applying (haga’at) its blood (to the lintel and the two doorposts) with a bunch of hyssop”

This requires an explanation:

The Tosefta adds many differences “between Pesach Mitzrayim  and Pesach Dorot” (which are not enumerated in the Mishnah). Among them is –

“Concerning Pesach Mitzrayim  it states: and it shall be applied/haga’atem to the lintel and the two doorposts which is not so by Pesach Dorot”

It is not understood:

This very difference between Pesach Mitzrayim  and Pesach Dorot was already enumerated in the aforementioned Mishnah – what , therefore, does the Tosefta add (in this section) to the Mishnah?

One could say that Rambam learns that since the Tosefta is precise in citing the verse:” And it shall be applied/haga’atem etc” that it wants to emphasize that which is stated plainly in the Mishnah. Namely, that by Pesach Mitzrayim  there is an additional obligation (than that of just simply “sprinkling/haza’ah”) and this is emphasized by the command: ” And it shall be applied/haga’atem etc” (which is not by Pesach Dorot where there is no such obligation)

The explanation is:

In the reason that in the command (which Moshe Rabbeinu said to the Elders of the Israelites) concerning the throwing of the blood on the lintel and the two doorposts, the wording is:

“And you shall etc. immerse it in the blood  etc. and you shall apply it/ haga’atem to the lintel etc” (which is not like G-d’s command: ”and (you shall) put it/natnu on the two doorposts and on the lintel”

 is – as the Rogotchover Gaon explains  - that:

“Until here (this verse), the main Mitzvah was not to splash it, but rather that it just be on the lintel. And here (it is like) the fats etc (the eimurim) where their offering (haktara) is the Mitzvah, so too is it here.  And it is not like other blood where it is only where it is placed (hanacha) not that it must rest there)”

This means that concerning splashing of the blood, in general, the Mitzvah is accomplished with the act of splashing (zerika), i.e in the sprinkling/haza’ah (hanacha), but not in “that which it is rests there/munach” (and he cites there the difference in Halacha)

However, by Pesach Mitzrayim , the blood had to “rest/munach” on the lintel and the two doorposts like the offering of the Eimurim on the Altar, where the Mitzvah is not just the deed of the person, that he places the Eimurim on the Altar, but rather that they must “rest there/munach”  on the Altar

4. The simple reason for the obligation to “apply” is – as the Rogotchover states there – is because “it needed to protect from the damager (mazik)”. Therefore the blood needed to “remain” on the lintel etc.

Accordingly, one could say, that this is also connected to the nature of the offering of Pesach Mitzrayim :

One could say that (this corresponds to) the explanation in the aforementioned difference  (Par. 2) between a private altar (bamah) and the altar in the Tabernacle and Temple – that specifically by the altar in the Tabernacle and Temple is there a law of the location (confines)  of the Altar.

The exemption (heter) to offer on a private altar is only for the sake of the deed of the person (pe’ulat hagavra) – In other words, to give him the possibility to offer a korban. Therefore, offering on a private altar does not convey holiness to the place (and house) where the korban was brought.

However, the holiness of the Altar in the Tabernacle and Temple is not just for the sake of the person (pe’ulat hagavra), but rather the object (cheftza), i.e. the Altar, has within it, a holiness (and therefore, that is why one offers upon it korbanot.). That is why the holiness of the altar is connected with a specific location.

And this is the reason why by Pesach Mitzrayim , there was a special obligation of “applying/hega’atem”:

If by Pesach Mitzrayim  there would just have been the law of sprinkling the blood, it would have meant that the lintel and the two doorposts had the nature of an altar, just vis-à-vis the person’s benefit ((pe’ulat hagavra) (for at Pesach Mitzrayim , there was no offering of Eimurim on the altar, as will explained Par 5)

However, by throwing the blood, in a manner of “applying/hega’atem”, that it “rested” on the lintel and two doorposts, it caused them to have the law of an altar because of itself ( the object/cheftza)

5. With this, one can also explain the debate in the Talmud concerning the eimurim of Pesach Mitzrayim .

The Talmud states:  

“R’ Zeira asked: Where did they burn the eimurim of the Pesach offering of Egypt *for there is no mention of an altar-Rashi) Said Abaye, and who is to tell us that it was not prepared roast? (Roasted meat on a spit- Rashi) Moreover, R’ Joseph learned: Three altars were there (for the sprinkling of the blood, namely) the lintel and the two doorposts. Further, was there nothing else” (there were three altars for sprinkling the blood, yet for the Eimurim there was no altar – Rashi) 

Plainly, with the words: “Moreover, R’ Joseph learned etc.” Abaye wished to bring another proof to his answer. Beforehand, he resolves the question of: “Where did they burn the emurim?” –(by stating) that “it was prepared roast”, (in other words) it is true that the Eimurim were not offered on the altar  -  they were roasted on the spit. And afterwards he brings a proof that there was no offering of the altar from the  Beraita: “Three altars were there . . Further, there was nothing else”

However, according to this, the words of the Talmud do not fit (glatik). Why is the phrase: “Moreover/v’od” used, which depicts an addition to the subject? He should have stated: “Like/kiditana R’ Joseph learned” ( or something similar)

Yet according to the aforementioned, one could explain that with the phrase: “Moreover/v’od”, Abaye is bringing (not just a proof, but rather) an additional explanation in the answer to the question: “Where did they burn the eimurim?”

6. From R’ Zeira’s question: “Where did they burn the emurim?” (Not – if they indeed burned the eimurim at all), proves that, according to him, it is elementary that Pesach Mitzrayim  contained all the details of the offering of a korban, including the offering of the eimurim, which is an essential aspect of the offering of a korban.

Just as there is no question by him regarding the splashing of the blood (even though, there is no mention of an altar). For it was elementary to him that the placing of the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts was a substitution to splashing the blood on the altar

His question was just: “where did they burn it?”

Therefore, Abaye did not suffice with the answer: ‘who is to tell us that it was not prepared roast?” –

Because in the aspect of offering the eimurim on the altar there are two details:

  1. The deed of offering it on the part of the person (gavra)
  2. That which the thing that is offered, rests on the altar


Therefore, while it is true that the aspect of “it was prepared roast” helps to answer the first detail, of the deed of offering, but it does not help and does not fit the second detail – that it should rest on the altar, since the “spit” is not the category of an altar where the concept of “resting” applies to it.




 Date Delivered:   Reviewer:       
Date Modified:    Date Reviewed: