בא

The Significance of the 'Korban’ Pesach[1]

It is common to think of the Pesach ceremony in Egypt in terms of a korban. After all, it was the original form of the mitzvah of korban Pesach which has the traditional hallmarks of a regular korban. Amongst other things, it must be sacrificed in the temple courtyard, requires sprinkling of the blood on the altar, and its innards are burnt on the altar. 

Even in its original form there are a number of aspects which are clearly suggestive of a korban-like status:

1. The specific requirement regarding the nature of the animal. It had to be a one-year old unblemished sheep (Shemot 12:5). These requirements are otherwise found only in relation to sacrifices (see Vayikra 22:20). 

2. The method of preparation. The requirement that the animal be "roasted with its head on its entrails and legs" (Shemot 12:9) finds it parallel in the preparation of the korban chatat (see Vayikra 4:11).

3. The manner in which it was eaten. The prohibition against leftovers and the requirement to burn such leftovers (see Shemot 12:10) are clearly derived from its korban-like status. The requirement to eat matzah with the Pesach may also be connected to the sacrificial aspect given that many korbanot were eaten together with matzah.

The expression פסח הוא לה' (Shemot 12:11) also seems to allude to the sacrificial aspect as such a term is generally associated with the world of korbanot (see Vayikra 5:19).

הנה האש והעצים, ואיה המזבח לעולה?

Particularly in light of all these connections it comes as a surprise that in the original source of the mitzvah in parashat Bo we find no mention of any actual offering or altar. This is true with respect to the one-off event in Egypt as well as the instruction for future generations. The laws of korban Pesach are mainly derived from this parasha yet it appears to lack the critical components of a korban. The only hints in the Torah to the fact that the Pesach was to be reconfigured into a standard korban model is in the context of Pesach Sheni (Bamidbar 9:1-14), and in discussing the requirement to eat the Pesach in the 'place of God's choosing' (see Devarim 16:2-6).[2]

The answer to this riddle lies in perhaps the most symbolic act of all:

וְלָקְחוּ מִן־הַדָּם וְנָתְנוּ עַל־שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת וְעַל־הַמַּשְׁקוֹף עַל הַבָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר־יֹאכְלוּ אֹתוֹ בָּהֶם (שמות יב:ז)

There is indeed a sprinkling of the blood in Egypt – only it is on the entrance to the house instead of the altar. This suggests that the missing altar in Egypt was represented by the home itself.[3] The fire roasting the Pesach within each home corresponds to the fire of the altar which burns the offerings. Given the role of ritual sacrifice as an act of self-dedication to God,[4] the symbolism of the transformation of the home into an altar is crystal clear. At the inauguration of the Jewish nation, each family unit makes their home into a vehicle for the divine presence and dedicates themselves to the service of God.[5]

The equation between the home and the altar also explains why there is such a focus on the house with respect to the general laws surrounding Pesach:

דַּבְּרוּ אֶל־כָּל־עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר בֶּעָשֹׂר לַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה וְיִקְחוּ לָהֶם אִישׁ שֶׂה לְבֵית־אָבֹת שֶׂה לַבָּיִת׃ וְאִם־יִמְעַט הַבַּיִת מִהְיֹת מִשֶּׂה וְלָקַח הוּא וּשְׁכֵנוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשֹׁת אִישׁ לְפִי אָכְלוֹ תָּכֹסּוּ עַל־הַשֶּׂה: (שמות יב:ג-ד)

בְּבַיִת אֶחָד יֵאָכֵל לֹא־תוֹצִיא מִן־הַבַּיִת מִן־הַבָּשָׂר חוּצָה וְעֶצֶם לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ־בוֹ׃ (שמות יב:מו)

שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ אַךְ בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם כִּי כָּל־אֹכֵל חָמֵץ וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִיּוֹם הָרִאשֹׁן עַד־יוֹם הַשְּׁבִעִי׃ (שמות יב:טו)

Each household eats from the same Pesach and ideally each house has its own sheep. The meat of the Pesach may not be taken outside the house. For seven days the house needs to be cleansed of chametz. The last law is particularly interesting in light of the general law prohibiting chametz from being placed on the altar (see Vayikra 2:2). The symbolic transformation of the home into an altar is thus partially re-enacted each year by removing chametz from the entire house.[6]

Meaning of 'Pesach'

The implication of the above is that it was in fact the act of communal dedication to God which provided protection during the final plague. The transformation of home into a metaphorical altar invites in the divine presence which immunises against the plague raging outside, targeting the gods of Egypt and the firstborns (considered in ancient Egypt to be consecrated to the gods from birth).

Some commentators have pointed out that the term Pesach is better translated as 'shield' rather than 'pass over’ as commonly though.[7] The preference for this translation can be seen from the following verse:

וְעָבַר ה' לִנְגֹּף אֶת־מִצְרַיִם וְרָאָה אֶת־הַדָּם עַל־הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת וּפָסַח ה' עַל־הַפֶּתַח וְלֹא יִתֵּן הַמַּשְׁחִית לָבֹא אֶל־בָּתֵּיכֶם לִנְגֹּף׃ (שמות יב:כג)

If the meaning is that God passes over the entrance upon seeing the blood, then that already provides the reason why there was no death in those homes. It seems preferable to read the verse as saying that God will see the blood and thereby shield the home against the oncoming משחית.

A similar point may be made regarding the following verse:

וַאֲמַרְתֶּם זֶבַח־פֶּסַח הוּא לַה' אֲשֶׁר פָּסַח עַל־בָּתֵּי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִצְרַיִם בְּנָגְפּוֹ אֶת־מִצְרַיִם וְאֶת־בָּתֵּינוּ הִצִּיל וַיִּקֹּד הָעָם וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲוּוּ׃ (שמות יב: כז)

It would seem redundant to say that God 'saved' the houses after having already stated that he passed over the houses. However, if Pesach means to 'shield' then the sequence is clearer, as it means that God shielded the houses and thereby saved the Jewish homes. Either way there is a strong anthropomorphisation, however it is symbolically important whether God is portrayed as simply passing over the Jewish house or actively defending them, as it were. It would appear to me that this is a deliberate ambiguity consistent with the wider presentation of the Pesach sacrifice. On the surface the placing of the blood on the door masquerades as an apotropaic ritual to ward off an evil deity. Such rituals were common in the pagan world and would have been relatable from a practical standpoint. From this perspective, the focus is on the outside destroyer who is blocked from entering by virtue of the blood ritual. The deeper symbolism, however, eradicates the idolatrous undertones and replaces it with a rational-monotheistic framework as described above. In the refined outlook of the Torah, it is the symbolic significance of the home-to-altar transformation representing their dedication to God, which creates a barrier to the outside paganistic world and therefore saves them.   

Protective power of an altar

To further appreciate the above, it is important to note that in the ancient world an altar was considered to provide refuge and protection. Such a belief may be inferred from the Torah itself:

וְכִי־יָזִד אִישׁ עַל־רֵעֵהוּ לְהָרְגוֹ בְעָרְמָה מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת׃ (שמות כא:יד)

In the above verse, the Torah is protesting the perverse idea that a murderer might be able to evade justice by cleaving to the altar (as indeed Yoav tried to do – see Melachim II, 29-34). Similarly, the inherent properties of the altar should not be seen as providing any metaphysical protection. Within the story of the Pesach in Egypt, is embedded the message that the altar is but a means to an end, whose significance lies in its symbol of dedication to God. In Egypt, it was specifically the home as the representative altar which afforded protection, and not any actual altar.

Based on this perspective, the original Pesach does not require any animal sacrifice, as the people are themselves the living offering to God. The home itself is infused with sanctity rendering any independent altar unnecessary. In its ideal and perhaps utopic form, the animal sacrifice and the altar are not needed and are a distraction to the true nature of the dedication. 

It is interesting that one of the commandments regarding the procedure in Egypt which does not repeat itself in the annual ritual is the prohibition for people to leave their houses:

 וְאַתֶּם לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח־בֵּיתוֹ עַד־בֹּקֶר: (שמות יב:כב)

Superficially, this is understandable simply on the basis that someone who leaves their special protected zone exposes himself to the danger on the outside. This was relevant to the night of the exodus but not subsequently. However, it seems to me that there is a deeper point. The people may not exit their home during the night as they are being dedicated on the altar. The general law with respect to sacrifices is that meat on the altar may not be removed, if it falls off it must be returned.[8] In a similar vein, the people themselves under the model proposed above, may not leave the house in order not to separate from their own act of dedication. Breaking away in these circumstances would represent a figurative act of rejection.

The verse above prohibiting people from leaving their home during the night, does in fact have a correspondence within the instruction of the annual ritual, however it has been slightly revised:

לֹא־תוֹצִיא מִן־הַבַּיִת מִן־הַבָּשָׂר חוּצָה (שמות יב:מו)

Instead of the people not being able to leave the house, it is now the meat which may not be taken out of the house. This seems to relate to the difference between the original Pesach and the annual Pesach. The former represents the raw ideal of self-dedication without the sacrificial intermediary, whereas the latter adopts the known sacrificial model and uses it as a vehicle to commemorate the original. Ironically, it is specifically through the sacrificial reconfiguration that one can appreciate the uniqueness and intensity of the original event.

 

 

---

[1] Much of the discussion in the first two sections is based on articles by R. Yonatan Grossman, פסח - קרבן או סעודה, and R. Amnon Bazak, משמעותו של זבח הפסח

[2] See Seforno's commentary to verse 5. Note that Devarim does not specifically reference any other korban and even in the context of Pesach, there is no reference to the altar or any offering.

[3] The Talmud, Pesachim 96a seems to already allude to this idea:

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֵימוּרֵי פֶּסַח מִצְרַיִם הֵיכָא אַקְטְרִינְהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּמַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּלָא שְׁוִיסְקֵי עֲבוּד? הוְעוֹד, הָא תְּנָא רַב יוֹסֵף: שְׁלֹשָׁה מִזְבְּחוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם: עַל הַמַּשְׁקוֹף, וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזוֹת. וְתוּ מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא הֲוָה

[4] Various commentators have seen the phrase אדם כי יקריב מכם (Vayikra 1:2) as pointing to this principle. Similar ideas are discussed with respect to the symbolism of various procedural aspects of the offering (e.g. leaning on the animal prior to it being offered up) - see Ramban, Vayikra 1:7. The story of the Akeidah also strongly invokes this idea.

[5] This explains why the Pesach sacrifice surfaces in the context of the major re-dedications which took place in the times of Yehoshua, Chizkiyahu, and Yoshiyahu.

[6] The other place in the Torah where the house acts as such a physical-spiritual barrier to the outside is in the story of the rescue of Lot. For discussion of the significance of this comparison see the earlier post here which is closely related to this discussion. 

[7] This is the view of the Tosefta (Sotah 4:5). See discussion in R. Moshe Shamah, Recalling the Covenant, p.303-304.

[8] See Zevachim 85b

שמות

The Voice of Moshe and the ‘Voice’ of the Signs

We have previously noted the significance of the fact that Moshe's parents are not introduced with personal names, but with reference to their Levite heritage. This is more than simply a ploy to conceal their identities. Rather, it is intended to create an association between Moshe’s family and their ancestor Levi. In the story of Moshe's birth, his parents and older sister risk their lives to evade the decree of Pharaoh and save Moshe, effectively mirroring Levi's earlier actions who risked his life to rescue his younger sister from the hands of Shechem.

It is also interesting to briefly consider the parallels between the rescue of Moshe with the rescue of Yishmael which further serve to highlight the heroic tradition of resistance in Moshe's family:

Rescue of Moshe (Shemot 1-2)	Rescue of Yishmael (Bereshit 21)
וַיְצַו פַּרְעֹה לְכָל־עַמּוֹ לֵאמֹר כָּל־הַבֵּן הַיִּלּוֹד הַיְאֹרָה תַּשְׁלִיכֻהוּ... וְלֹא־יָכְלָה עוֹד הַצְּפִינוֹ וַתִּקַּח־לוֹ תֵּבַת גֹּמֶא וַתַּחְמְרָה בַחֵמָר וּבַזָּפֶת וַתָּשֶׂם בָּהּ אֶת־הַיֶּלֶד וַתָּשֶׂם בַּסּוּף עַל־שְׂפַת הַיְאֹר	וַיִּכְלוּ הַמַּיִם מִן־הַחֵמֶת וַתַּשְׁלֵךְ אֶת־הַיֶּלֶד תַּחַת אַחַד הַשִּׂיחִם
וַתֵּתַצַּב אֲחֹתוֹ מֵרָחֹק לְדֵעָה מַה־יֵּעָשֶׂה לוֹ	וַתֵּלֶךְ וַתֵּשֶׁב לָהּ מִנֶּגֶד הַרְחֵק כִּמְטַחֲוֵי קֶשֶׁת כִּי אָמְרָה אַל־אֶרְאֶה בְּמוֹת הַיָּלֶד
וַתִּשָּׂא אֶת־קֹלָהּ וַתֵּבְךְּ׃ וַיִּשְׁמַע אֱלֹקים אֶת־קוֹל הַנַּעַר	וְהִנֵּה־נַעַר בֹּכֶה וַתַּחְמֹל עָלָיו
וַתֵּרֶד בַּת־פַּרְעֹה לִרְחֹץ עַל־הַיְאֹר וְנַעֲרֹתֶיהָ הֹלְכֹת עַל־יַד הַיְאֹר וַתֵּרֶא אֶת־הַתֵּבָה בְּתוֹךְ הַסּוּף וַתִּשְׁלַח אֶת־אֲמָתָהּ וַתִּקָּחֶהָ	קוּמִי שְׂאִי אֶת־הַנַּעַר וְהַחֲזִיקִי אֶת־יָדֵךְ בּוֹ כִּי־לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל אֲשִׂימֶנּוּ׃ וַיִּפְקַח אֱלֹקים אֶת־עֵינֶיהָ וַתֵּרֶא בְּאֵר מָיִם
וַיִגְדַּל הַיֶּלֶד וַתְּבִאֵהוּ לְבַת־פַּרְעֹה וַיְהִי־לָהּ לְבֵן וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ מֹשֶׁה וַתֹּאמֶר כִּי מִן־הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ	וַיְהִי אֱלֹקים אֶת־הַנַּעַר וַיִּגְדָּל וַיֵּשֶׁב בַּמִּדְבָּר וַיְהִי רֹבֶה קַשָּׁת

Hagar sees her son is about to die so she casts him down and sits at a distance to escape the painful reality. In light of the correspondences listed above, Hagar’s actions appear to resemble the decree of Pharaoh. Though this is may be an exaggerated comparison, the verb ש-ל-ך generally refers to an act of disposal, if not aggression (see Bereshit 37:24), such that it emphasises the cruelty of the abandonment. Her reaction is one of despair and ‘she raises her voice to cry’. Moshe's parents, in contrast, refuse to surrender to the decree of Pharaoh. They give birth to a son and do everything in their power to ensure his survival, gently ‘placing’ him in the basket. Miriam stands to watch. As helpless as she may have felt, she refuses to abandon her younger brother. Through God’s providential hand, the boy is saved by Pharaoh’s own daughter.[1]

Moshe's earliest recorded actions are very much in the same tradition. Moshe cannot bear to see the abuse of his brethren. Without considering the consequences or his personal safety, he intervenes to kill the Egyptian oppressor. On day two he intervenes again though this time the fight is between two Israelites. He rebukes the 'wicked' Israelite who has raised his arm to strike his fellow. Were his interventions in these cases a little rash? Perhaps - but then again, so too were Levi's action in Shechem.

'Not a man of words'

Moshe's penchant for action over speech accounts for his assumption that the people would not listen to his words and would instead require miraculous signs. It would be necessary for them to see the ‘hand’ of God to be convinced of the authenticity of the mission. When God presents these signs to Moshe, God says that the people will (or ought to) to listen to the 'voice' of the signs:

וְהָיָה אִם־לֹא יַאֲמִינוּ לָךְ וְלֹא יִשְׁמְעוּ לְקֹל הָאֹת הָרִאשׁוֹן וְהֶאֱמִינוּ לְקֹל הָאֹת הָאַחֲרוֹן (שמות ד:ח)

The ‘voice of a sign’ is obviously an unusual expression and appears intended to highlight the supernatural nature of the voice. This climaxes where they see God’s mighty hand at the splitting of the sea:

וַיַּרְא יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַיָּד הַגְּדֹלָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה' בְּמִצְרַיִם וַיִּירְאוּ הָעָם אֶת־ה' וַיַּאֲמִינוּ בַּה' וּבְמֹשֶׁה עַבְדּו (שמות יד:לא)

Moshe successfully leads the people to see the יד חזקה of God which is a fitting reflection of his own character and style of leadership as demonstrated in the early stories of his life.[2] against this background we can say that there appears to have been a deep truth to his declaration: "לא איש דברים אנכי". What Moshe did not appreciate is that this is precisely why he was chosen. It would, after all, be God's actions (i.e. the plagues) which would deliver the people whilst words would indeed fail to make any impact.

The dual purpose of the plagues

This may shed light on the meaning of the third sign provided to Moshe at the burning bush. Signs one and two, being the conversion of the staff into a snake and the appearance of tzaraat on the hand of Moshe, are immediately reversed. In fact, the reversal seems to be as important, if not more important, than the initial event. The third act, however, where water poured from the river will turn to blood, is not reversed. Furthermore, whilst sign two is referred to as the ‘last sign’ the water into blood phenomenon is not referred to as a sign at all. This suggests that the third sign is materially different and is not an independent sign at all. Rather, it is a consequence of the people not listening to the first two signs and alludes to the commencement of the actual plagues, starting with the plague of blood. The point is that although the plagues will be directed at the Egyptians, they will also target the Israelites in terms of their message. The plagues are as much a reaction to Pharaoh’s refusal to listen to Moshe’s voice as they are a reaction to the people’s apathy. This is also apparent from the kal va-chomer of Moshe which draws a connection between the parallel missions to speak to Pharaoh and to the people:

וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה לִפְנֵי ה' לֵאמֹר הֵן בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא־שָׁמְעוּ אֵלַי וְאֵיךְ יִשְׁמָעֵנִי פַרְעֹה וַאֲנִי עֲרַל שְׂפָתָיִם (שמות ו:יג)

Clearly some form of response was expected of the people otherwise the kal va-chomer makes no sense. The people would need to become an active partner in the redemption process as much as it would be necessary for Pharaoh to personally free the people. Having failed to achieve this goal through verbal communication, such commitment would need to be garnered through miraculous action. This need for reliance on miracles was represented by Moshe's staff. 

The staff as an alternative for speech

In introducing the signs, attention is drawn to Moshe's staff:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו ה' מזה [מַה־] [זֶּה] בְיָדֶךָ וַיֹּאמֶר מַטֶּה (שמות ד:ב)

At first glance, this verse does not seem to add much to the narrative itself. The contribution, however, is to elevate the significance of the staff which will play a central role from this point on in terms of initiating the miracles which will drive the redemption. Understanding the symbolic role of the staff in this way can shed light on the episode of Mei Merivah.

Without going into the details of Moshe's transgression,[3] we can point to the critical issue being the use of the staff instead of speech. Moshe has grown accustomed to solving the nation's problems through the power of the staff and is unable to replace it with power of speech. The need for signs and wonders is understandable in light of the condition of the enslaved nation. The people’s natural sense of curiosity and willingness to engage is numbed by the daily dirge of forced labour and basic fight for survival:

וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה כֵּן אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה מִקֹּצֶר רוּחַ וּמֵעֲבֹדָה קָשָׁה (שמות ו:ט)

In this setting, signs and miracles are appropriate and they do indeed become the order of the day during the sojourn in the wilderness where the slave mentality in the nation is still plainly evident. However, the new generation raised as free people, are expected to listen to a voice rather than merely observe the actions of a staff. Listening to a voice requires active engagement on the part of the listener – a vital attribute for discerning God within a natural reality as relevant upon entering the land.

With this background, the differences between the two stories are illuminating. As at the burning bush, at Mei Merivah God expressly instructs Moshe to take the staff in his hand:

וְאֶת־הַמַּטֶּה הַזֶּה תִּקַּח בְּיָדֶךָ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה־בּוֹ אֶת־הָאֹתֹת (שמות ד:יז)

קַח אֶת־הַמַּטֶּה וְהַקְהֵל אֶת־הָעֵדָה אַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ וְדִבַּרְתֶּם אֶל־הַסֶּלַע לְעֵינֵיהֶם וְנָתַן מֵימָיו (במדבר כ:ח)

Aside from one other place (Shemot 7:19 – at the start of the plagues), these are the only instances where Moshe is expressly instructed to take the staff. The difference, of course, is that in the episode of the rock, God specifically directs Moshe to ‘speak’ and not to use the staff. As already mentioned above, Moshe does not regard himself as 'a man of words', but words are precisely what is required now to lead the new generation. 

The purpose of the signs provided to Moshe at the burning bush is to address the objection of Moshe that the people will 'not believe him':

וַיַּעַן מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמֶר וְהֵן לֹא־יַאֲמִינוּ לִי וְלֹא יִשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי

At the episode of the rock, the failure of Moshe is described in terms which echo the very problem he projected onto the people:

יַעַן לֹא־הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם בִּי לְהַקְדִּישֵׁנִי לְעֵינֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לָכֵן לֹא תָבִיאוּ אֶת־הַקָּהָל הַזֶּה אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־נָתַתִּי לָהֶם (במדבר כ:יב)

Whilst Moshe's characterisation as a man of courageous and uncompromising action was the reason he was chosen to lead the people out of Egypt, the unwillingness to replace the staff with words is suggestive of the reason a new leader was required for the next generation.

 

 

---

[1] Fascinatingly, the Midrash places Hagar as a daughter of Pharaoh as well. See R. Amnon Bazak, Nekudat Petichah, p.128

[2] I have not had a chance to fully develop the point, but it seems to me that this point is alluded to in the last verse of the Torah which appears to ascribes the יד חזקה to Moshe himself. Rashi’s comments there are highly noteworthy in view of this discussion.

[3] For a more detailed discussion of the nature of the transgression see post here