Divrei Chaim

וּלְכֹ֣ל׀ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל לֹ֤א יֶֽחֱרַץ⁠־כֶּ֙לֶב֙ לְשֹׁנ֔וֹ לְמֵאִ֖ישׁ וְעַד⁠־בְּהֵמָ֑ה לְמַ֙עַן֙ תֵּֽדְע֔וּן אֲשֶׁר֙ יַפְלֶ֣ה ה׳ בֵּ֥ין מִצְרַ֖יִם וּבֵ֥ין יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ (11:7)

The Mechilta comments on the pasuk וְאַנְשֵׁי⁠־קֹ֖דֶשׁ תִּהְי֣וּן לִ֑י וּבָשָׂ֨ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֤ה טְרֵפָה֙ לֹ֣א תֹאכֵ֔לוּ לַכֶּ֖לֶב תַּשְׁלִכ֥וּן אֹתֽוֹ (22:3) that nevil is thrown to the dogs as a reward for their not barking. ולמה לכלב, ללמדך שאין הקב״ה מקפח שכר כל בריה, שנאמר (פ׳ בא) ולכל בני ישראל לא יחרץ כלב לשונו, אמר הקב״ה תן לו שכרו

In the plague of frogs described in last week's parsha the Torah tells us that the frogs jumped even into the burning hot ovens of the Egyptians, sacrificing their lives to see that the plague effected ever corner of Egypt. The gemara writes (Pes 53) that Chanaya, Mishael, and Azarya learned the din of mesirus nefesh from these frogs:

ת"ש עוד זו דרש תודוס איש רומי מה ראו חנניה מישאל ועזריה שמסרו [עצמן] על קדושת השם לכבשן האש נשאו קל וחומר בעצמן מצפרדעים ומה צפרדעים שאין מצווין על קדושת השם כתיב בהו ובאו [ועלו] בביתך [וגו'] ובתנוריך ובמשארותיך אימתי משארות מצויות אצל תנור הוי אומר בשעה שהתנור חם אנו שמצווין על קדושת השם על אחת כמה וכמה

If the dogs get a reward for not barking, one would think the frogs surely deserve and even greater reward for their mesirus nefesh. How come we don't find such a thing?

It must be that keeping silent -- holding your bark in check -- is an even greater challenge and greater accomplishment than giving up one's life. And that's not just a lesson that applies to dogs and frogs.

2) What was so great about the dog's not barking? The gemara (BK 60) writes that ת"ר כלבים בוכים מלאך המות בא לעיר כלבים משחקים אליהו הנביא בא לעיר, so the fact that the dogs did not respond to the malach ha'mashchis was a miracle. This, says the pasuk, was meant to demonstrate to us that Bn"Y is different from the Egyptians. As Rashbam explains:

המלאך מזיק ומשחית בכורי מצרים, אבל בכורי ישראל אפילו קול ניבוח של מזיקי החיות לא יזיק אותם.

Do we really need the silence of the dogs to prove to us לְמַ֙עַן֙ תֵּֽדְע֔וּן אֲשֶׁר֙ יַפְלֶ֣ה ה׳ בֵּ֥ין מִצְרַ֖יִם וּבֵ֥ין יִשְׂרָאֵֽל?! For the past 9 makkos, every makkah struck the Egyptians while Bn"Y was spared. In makkas choshech, the Egyptians were sitting in the dark, incapable even of seeing how to get out of their chairs, and when a Jew entered the same room there was light. The difference between Bn"Y and Egypt was as clear as night vs day!

The special significance to the dogs silence becomes clear if we look deeper into why Bn"Y was still in galus. If you recall from parshas Shmos, after Moshe struck down the Egyptian who was beating up a Jewish slave, the next day he went out and accosted two Jews who were fighting with each other. They did not take well to his rebuke (2:14:

וַ֠יֹּ֠אמֶר מִ֣י שָֽׂמְךָ֞ לְאִ֨ישׁ שַׂ֤ר וְשֹׁפֵט֙ עָלֵ֔ינוּ הַלְהׇרְגֵ֙נִי֙ אַתָּ֣ה אֹמֵ֔ר כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר הָרַ֖גְתָּ אֶת⁠־הַמִּצְרִ֑י וַיִּירָ֤א מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֹּאמַ֔ר אָכֵ֖ן נוֹדַ֥ע הַדָּבָֽר׃

Rashi comments:

וירא משה – על שראה בישראל רשעים דילטורין, אמר: מעתה שמא אינן ראויין ליגאל

It was the talebearing, the gossip, the lashon ha'ra, that Moshe now saw which led him to think that the Jewish people were not worthy of redemption at this time.

The Torah tells us that there is a specific punishment for a baal lashon ha'ra. The gemara (Pes 118) explains the juxtaposition of the two pesukim (22:30-23:1)

וְאַנְשֵׁי⁠־קֹ֖דֶשׁ תִּהְי֣וּן לִ֑י וּבָשָׂ֨ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֤ה טְרֵפָה֙ לֹ֣א תֹאכֵ֔לוּ לַכֶּ֖לֶב תַּשְׁלִכ֥וּן אֹתֽוֹ

לֹ֥א תִשָּׂ֖א שֵׁ֣מַע שָׁ֑וְא אַל⁠־תָּ֤שֶׁת יָֽדְךָ֙ עִם⁠־רָשָׁ֔ע לִהְיֹ֖ת עֵ֥ד חָמָֽס׃

as follows:

אמר רב ששת משום ר׳ אלעזר בן עזריה, כל המספר לשון הרע וכל המקבל לשון הרע וכל המעיד עדות שקר בחבירו ראוי להשליכו לכלבים, שנאמר (כ״ב ל׳) לכלב תשליכון אותו וכתיב בתרי׳ לא תשא שמע שוא וקרי בי׳ נמי לא תשיא

The punishment for the sin of lashon ha'ra is being thrown to the dogs.

According to the Midrash, when the brothers saw Yosef coming towards them and they were debating what to do with him, they were thinking of throwing him to wild dogs. They saw Yosef as a baal lashon ha'ra, and therefore deserving of that fate.

In next week's parsha we will read that there was one idol left to the Egyptians that had not been destroyed -- בּעל צפון (see Rashi 14:2). Figure out the gematriya and you have the same number ( צפן is chaseir) as כּלב רע. Meaning, Bn"Y were still plagued a bit by this sin of lashon ha'ra. They had not yet done all the work that that needed to do to be worthy of geulah -- look in next week's parsha at the infighting that took place by Yam Suf -- but Hashem was willing to put that aside and overlook it.

The Maggid of Marrakech puts two and two together to explain our pasuk. The Egyptians were being punished for their sins, but Bn"Y's hands were not completely clean either. The cloud of על שראה בישראל רשעים דילטורין, אמר: מעתה שמא אינן ראויין ליגאל still hung over them. Nonetheless, even though כל המקבל לשון הרע וכל המעיד עדות שקר בחבירו ראוי להשליכו לכלבים, Bn"Y got a free pass that night of Pesach and לֹ֤א יֶֽחֱרַץ⁠־כֶּ֙לֶב֙ לְשֹׁנ֔וֹ.

The Rogatchover has a beautiful diyuk in the lashon haRambam. In hil Chu"M 8:7 the Rambam writes

ואחר כך מברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על אכילת הזבח ואוכל מבשר חגיגת ארבעה עשר תחלה. ומברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על אכילת הפסח ואוכל מגופו של פסח. ולא ברכת הפסח פוטרת של זבח ולא של זבח פוטרת של פסח:

Later in that same perek, the Rambam continues

ואחר כך נמשך בסעודה ואוכל כל מה שהוא רוצה לאכול ושותה כל מה שהוא רוצה לשתות. ובאחרונה אוכל מבשר הפסח אפילו כזית ואינו טועם אחריו כלל.

In the first halacha, the Rambam refers to eating מגופו של פסח. In the latter halacha, the Rambam refers to eating מבשר הפסח. Why the switch in terminology?

There is a fundamental machlokes Rashi and the Rambam with respect to the mitzvah of achilas pesach that opens the door to understanding the Rambam's precise use of language here.

The Mishna in Pesachim 84 tells us כל הנאכל בשור הגדול יאכל בגדי הרך וראשי כנפים והסחוסים Rashi explains

כל הנאכל בשור הגדול כו'. שכבר הוקשה כל מה שעתיד להקשות בו: יאכל בגדי הרך. ראוי לאכילה בפסח בן שמנה ימים אבל מה שאין נאכל בשור הגדול אין נמנין עליו בפסח אע"פ שעכשיו רך הוא עתיד להקשות בסופו

According to Rashi our sugya comes to answer the basic question of "What parts of the animal must be eaten?"

Rashi alludes to the machlokes R"Y and Reish Lakish in the gemara

איתמר גידין שסופן להקשות רבי יוחנן אמר נמנין עליהן בפסח ריש לקיש אמר אין נמנין עליהן בפסח

If a piece of meat is soft now but would become hard if the animal matured, need it be eaten? Do we look at the state of the meat now, or do we judge by what can be eaten in a mature animal? The gemara loops our mishna into the issue:

יתיביה ריש לקיש לר' יוחנן כל הנאכל בשור הגדול יאכל בגדי הרך ומה הן ראשי כנפים והסחוסים הני אין אבל גידין שסופן להקשות לא א"ל תנא הני וה"ה להנך

The Rambam (K.P 10:10) has a different spin on this sugya. He paskens:

גידין הרכין שסופן להקשות אע"פ שהן ראויין לאכילה עתה ונאכלין בפסח אין נמנין עליהן.

The question is not, "What must be eaten?" but rather, "What parts of the animal can one do minuy on?" גידין שסופן להקשות are excluded from minuy, but they still must be eaten, as the Rambam clearly says,ונאכלין בפסח!

What we see from the Rambam (R' Chaim in the stencils as a slightly different hesber) is that there are two dinim, what the Rogatchover calls (bottom of first column here ) the גוף הפּסח vs the תורת מצוה of eating the pesach, or what I would call 1) the chalos shem korban pesach on the animal vs 2) the chovas hagavra to eat korban pesach.

You can have something that is not included in the mitzvah of minuy because there is no chovas hagavra to eat it, but at the same time because there is a chalos shem korban pesach on the entire animal, it must be consumed.

Some nafka minos the Rogatchover mentions:

A) גידין שסופן להקשות can be eaten in a differnt chabura, unlike korban pesach which must be eaten all in the same chabura

B) גידין שסופן להקשות can be consumed after chatzos, which is the endpoint according to R' Elazar ben Azarya for the mitzvas achilas pesach of the gavra

C) גידין שסופן להקשות can be eaten even by those who have not done minuy on this particular korban

Coming back to the Rambam in hil Chu"M, when the Rambam speaks about the mitzva of achilas hakorban, he uses the expression eating מגופו של פסח, to the exlusion of גידין שסופן להקשות. The Rambam then later in the perek tells us that at the end of the meal there is a mitzvah to eat another k'zayis, and here he uses the term מבשר הפסח, a more inclusive term and includes גידין שסופן להקשות. The chovas ha'gavra of achilas korban pesach has already been fulfilled at the start of the meal, but one must consume some of the cheftza shel korban to fulfill the idea of being נאכל על השׂובע and to consume what one can to avoid nosar.

The parsha tells us וְלֹֽא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה בָכֶ֥ם נֶ֙גֶף֙ לְמַשְׁחִ֔ית בְּהַכֹּתִ֖י בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃ (12:13). Hashem reassured Bn"Y that they would not be affected by makkas bechoros. Seforno explains:

שמלבד מכת הבכורות שלח בשאר העם ״עברה וזעם וצרה משלחת מלאכי רעים״ (תהלים ע״ח:מ״ט). כי לולא הפסיחה שעשה בחמלתו על ישראל לא היו נמלטים משאר הצרות ששלח על שארית עם מצרים, כענין ״פן תספה בעון העיר״

I don't understand the distinction he is drawing. It sounds like there was no danger from the makkah itself, but there was other dangers of עברה וזעם וצרה משלחת מלאכי רעים. Why should the principle of פן תספה בעון העיר apply to the latter and not the former?

Be that as it may, the fact that Bn"Y were in fear of being affected has a nafka mina l'halacha. O.C. 236 M"B 3 quoting Talmidei R"Y on why the bracha of hashkiveinu is not an interruption between geulah (the bracha of ga'al yisrael) and shmoneh esrei:

ואע"ג דקי"ל דצריך לסמוך גאולה לתפלה אף בערבית וכדלקמיה בס"ב מ"מ השכיבנו לא הוי הפסק דכגאולה אריכתא דמיא [גמרא] וכתבו בתר"י הטעם דכשעבר ה' לנגוף את מצרים היו ישראל מפחדים ומתפללים להש"י שיקיים דברו שלא יתן המשחית לבא אל בתיהם לנגוף וכנגד אותה תפלה תקנו לומר השכיבנו הלכך מעין גאולה היא

In the opening of our parsha Moshe appears before Pharoah and says in the name of Hashem עַד־מָתַ֣י מֵאַ֔נְתָּ לֵעָנֹ֖ת מִפָּנָ֑י שַׁלַּ֥ח עַמִּ֖י וְיַֽעַבְדֻֽנִי׃. Rashi explains לענות – כתרגומו: לאתכנעא, והוא מגזרת עני, מאנת להיות עני ושפל מפני. Hashem is asking Pharoah why he refuses to humble himself before Him and free Bnei Yisrael.

The question at first glance seems strange. Just 2 pesukim earlier we read that Hashem told Moshe בֹּ֖א אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כִּֽי־אֲנִ֞י הִכְבַּ֤דְתִּי אֶת־לִבּוֹ֙ וְאֶת־לֵ֣ב עֲבָדָ֔יו לְמַ֗עַן שִׁתִ֛י אֹתֹתַ֥י אֵ֖לֶּה בְּקִרְבּֽוֹ׃. Pharoah's heart was hardened by Hashem to prevent him from giving in so that Hashem could demonstate his might by bringing the makkos. How can G-d take Pharoah to task for מֵאַ֔נְתָּ לֵעָנֹ֖ת מִפָּנָ֑י when Hashem is the one hardening his heart and preventing him from doing so?

The gemara (San 102) writes that Rav Ashi once flippantly told the talmidim that the next day he was going to give a shiur about "Menashe our friend," meaning King Menashe. That night Menashe appeared to Rav Ashi in a dream to put him in his place, and he said to him, "I'm not your friend and I'm not your father's friend. You don't even know even a basic halacha like where a loaf of bread should be cut when you say ha'motzi." Rav Ashi then asked him to explain that halacha, and said he would say it over in King Menashe's name in the shiur. Then Rav Ashi asked the 64 million dollar question and said, "Menashe, if you're so smart, why were you an oveid avodah zarah?" To which Menashe answered, "Had you been alive when I was, you would have lifted your frock up so that you could run faster to get to the avodah zarah and worship it." Meaning, the yetzer for idolatry was so strong there was no escaping it.

Why Menashe chose this particular question of where to slice bread for ha'motzi from to prove Rav Ashi's ignorance is a question for another time. I want to focus on the last line about Rav Ashi lifting up his frock so he won't trip and be able to run faster. What did Menashe mean by that? Maharal (Netzach Yisrael ch 3, see Michtav m'Eliyahu vol 4 p 135) explains as follows: you can have an addict who knows what he is doing is bad but can't stop it, and you have an addict who is so entrenched in the addiction that he does not even recognize it as a bad thing. Let's say someone just loves chocolate cake and can't resist it when he sees it in the store even though he is overweight and has high cholesterol. If the person recognizes intellectually that it's bad for him, when the store is out of chocolate cake he says, "Baruch Hashem," and breathes a sigh of relief because he knows that he now will be doing the right thing. However, if the person does not even recognize that he is eating what he shouldn't be eating, he gets frustrated, he will run to the next store, etc. because to him, eating chocolate cake is a good thing, it's like a mitzvah. Menashe was telling Rav Ashi that in his generation, they knew avodah zarah was bad. Their seichel stood in the way of temptation, but temptation was just too strong and they ended upgiving in. However, said Menashe, had you been in my shoes, you would run after the avodah zarah, meaning there would be nothing blocking you, there would be no check on temptation because you would not even recognize it as wrong -- aderaba, you would rush to do it like it was a mitzvah.

True, Hashem hardened Pharoah's heart and he could not help but keep Bn"Y enslaved. It's like the addict who can't resist. However, like the Maharal explained, there is the addict who knows it's wrong, and there is the addict who is happy to wallow in his addiction. עַד־מָתַ֣י מֵאַ֔נְתָּ לֵעָנֹ֖ת מִפָּנָ֑י means, as Rashi explained, "Why have you not humbled yourself?" True, Pharoah, you can't free Bn"Y yet, but you don't have to be b'simcha over that fact. Aderaba, if you knew they should be free but just couldn't resist keeping them back, you would be humbled and contrite, upset at the state of affairs in which you find yourself. It's Pharoah's attitude which Hashem here is criticizing (sefas Emes 5632).

Even when you have a good excuse for not doing doing a mitzvah or a chessed, or the right thing, whatever it is, there is not a good excuse for not feeling at least a little bit of sadness about it. Ramban writes (Bamidbar 10:13) that Bn"Y ran away from Sinai, שנסעו מהר סיני בשמחה כתינוק הבורח מבית הספר, אמרו: שמא ירבה ויתן לנו מצות. Mattan Torah was over; they were free to move on and travel -- but it should be done with some sadness. On a Monday or Thursday if the gabai gives a klop and announces no tachanun, there doesn't have to be a cheer that goes up in shul (inwardly, if not outwardly.)

It's all about the attitude.

Rashi in parshas Bo quotes a hava amina that a ger should bring a korban pesach right after he converts and not wait until pesach. A few weeks ago my son explained that we see from Rashi that the korban pesach in Mitzrayim was a kiyum not just of the pesach offering, but also a kiyum of a korban geirus, and therefore one could have a hava amina that every ger bring such a korban at the time of conversion. Similarly, the milah done before pesach Mitzrayim was also a kiyum in geirus, as the mitzvah of milah itself had already been given to Avraham Avinu.

I was not so enamored with this idea. The gemara learns the need for a korban for geirus from the korban offered at the time of mattan Torah (end of our parsha). Tevilah and milah are also learned from mattan Torah. Why would Klal Yisrael need another geirus at mattan Torah, I asked him, if they already had a geirus in Mitzrayim?

My attempt to answer my own question:

Usually a ger has milah first and then tevilah. Ramban (Yevamos 47) holds that bdieved it can be done the other way around as well. Both milah and tevilah are steps in the geirus process, and until both are complete, in whatever order, the geirus in incomplete.

Achronim ask: the gemara (Yevamos 97) writes that if a mother pregnant with twins converts, even though ger she'nisgayer is k'katan she'nolad and all former familiar relationships are null and void, her sons born as Jews are considered related as brothers and there would be an issue of eishes ach for one to marry the other's wife. Why should this be true according to Ramban? Even though the twins are yotzei tevilah of geirus in utero, they still need milah to complete their geirus. 8 days after they are born, when they have milah and become geirim, their relationship with each other should be void?

Similarly, the gemara (Bechoros 47) writes that if a pregnant woman converts, the baby is a bechor l'kohen. According to Ramban, the baby is not even Jewish at birth! Since milah is necessary for complete geirus, it is only on day 8 that the baby even becomes Jewish, and therefore should not be considered a bechor?

R' Naftali Trop (shiur on ger katan in Kesubos) answers that there are two stages of geirus. Ramban does not mean that before milah the child is an aku"m. The child is a member of the Jewish nation, he is related to his Jewish brother, he is a bechor l'kohen if he is the first baby to come out of his mother's womb. However, the child lacks a kedushas yisrael. That is missing without the added step of milah.

How could there be geirus for children at mattan Torah when geirus requires daas and a katan has no daas? The answer is that the children were already part of Klal Yisrael since they were bnei Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. What the geirus of mattan Torah added is the element of kedushas yisrael. That extension of the geirus, of what it means to be part of Klal Yisrael, does not required additional daas or consent to be accepted.

I suggested to my son that perhaps this is why there was a to stage process of geirus, one in Mitzrayim and one at mattan Torah. The first, in Mitzrayim, forged us into a nation. The second, at mattan Torah, forged a kedushas yisrael, which is only possible through Torah. Without that we might have been a distinct nation, separate from Mitzrayim, but we would have not been a holy nation.

מִשְׁכוּ וּקְחוּ לָכֶם צֹאן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתֵיכֶם וְשַׁחֲטוּ הַפֶּסַח

Rashi comments משכו ידיכם מעבודה זרה וקחו לכם צאן של מצוה

R' Moshe Tzvi Neriah writes that you can learn two lessons from this Rashi. We learn from Rashi 1) how difficult it is to break old habits and resist temptation, as a person can be on the cusp of geulah and still require warnings and admonishments not to engage in idolatry; 2) and we also learn that even though a person might still be steeped in and tempted by avodah zarah, he can still be worthy of redemption.

It's worth noting (see hesber of Shem m'Shmuel 5675) that when Hashem gave Moshe the command to offer korban Pesach, He said only וְיִקְח֣וּ לָהֶ֗ם אִ֛ישׁ שֶׂ֥ה לְבֵית־אָבֹ֖ת שֶׂ֥ה לַבָּֽיִת׃. It is Moshe who added מִשְׁכוּ, meaning משכו ידיכם מעבודה זרה, when he transmitted it to Bnei Yisrael.

וּפָסַ֤ח ה׳ עַל־הַפֶּ֔תַח. We know that Hashem says "pischu li pesach shel machat," just give me an opening the size of the eye of a needle, let me into your heart just a little bit, and I will open gates for you that you can drive an 18 wheel truck through. Sometimes, though, even an opening the size of the eye of a needle is too much to ask for. וּפָסַ֤ח ה׳ עַל־הַפֶּ֔תַח, Hashem overlooked the need even for that smallest opening. Hashem himself did not ask for the משכו ידיכם מעבודה זרה. This was the amazing thing about the geulah from Egypt. It is moments before geulah and Moshe has to still tell people to give up their idolatry -- they still were not 100% committed to Hashem or bust -- and still, Hashem redeemed us.

After this command to take the korban and shecht it, the Torah goes on to speak about sprinkling the blood on the doorposts to protect against the malach ha'mashchis, and then ends the section וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה לְחׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם. Ramban and Ibn Ezra are bothered by the fact that this sprinking of the blood on the doorpost is not a mitzvah l'doros. Where is the חׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם?

(R' Berel Povarsky in his Bad Kodesh writes that there are 2 dinim in the zerikas ha'dam on the doorposts: 1) a unique din by pesach Mitzrayim that there had to be blood there to protect the house; 2) a din zerikas ha'dam like any other korban, as the doorpost was a substitute for the mizbeiach. Nafka minah: if a person had multiple dwellings, then m'din zerikas ha'dam of the korban, he fulfilled the mitzvah as soon as he put the blood one one house and the korban is became permissible to eat, but m'din having blood on each doorpost of a home that needed protection, he needed to paint the doorposts of the other homes as well. If so, maybe שְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה לְחׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם is talking about the regular din zerikas ha'dam that applies l'doros by other korbanos. Still a bit of a dochak.)

Ramban answers that you have to explain that this concluding pasuk is speaking only about taking and shechting the korban that had appeared earlier. R' Shimon Sofer, however, explains that it is talking about the sprinkling of the blood. "Halalu ovzei avodah zarah v'halalu ovdei avodah zarah," Bnei Yisrael had no merits to speak of to earn geulah. How does a little blood on the doorpost warrant protection from the malach ha'mashchis when you have nothing else going for you? The answer is that that's the חׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם. Geulah is a chok without reason. There is no logic to explain how a person can still need a warning not to be an oveid avodah zarah and merit geulah, but that's how Hashem decided to make things happen.

There is perhaps another element as to why Moshe added the word מִשְׁכוּ here, which also connects to the idea of this parsha being לְחׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם something that should be transmitted for eternity. Netziv comments as follows:

אבל לפי הפשט, באשר המצוה בפרשה הקודמת נאמרה לכל ישראל ליקח שה לבית אב, והיתה הדעת נותנת שיטפלו בזה האנשים הפשוטים בבית אב מי שרגיל למשוך טלה לשחיטה ולהפשיט, ולא מי שהוא גדול בבית אב ואין עסקו בכך, על כן קרא משה לזקני הדור והזהירם ביחוד ״משכו״ — אתם ״וקחו לכם צאן למשפחותיכם״ — בשביל כל המשפחה תהיו אתם המתעסקים בזה.

Had we just been given Hashem's command, we would have assumed that it should be the shleppers who do menial work who should go out and get the sheep and slaughter and butcher them. Shlucho shel adam k'moso, so let them do the dirty work for us. Moshe therefore added in his instructions מִשְׁכוּ וּקְחוּ לָכֶם, this is something you have to do for yourselves, not leave to the shleppers. The mitzvah needs your hands-on from the first steps.

Why this should be the case is what the Torah is telling us in that last pasuk of שְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה לְחׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם. No one in the household pays much attention to what the shlepper does, what the maid does, what the nanny does. They are there to free up our time so we can carry on with the important things of life. The Torah is telling us that if you want a mitzvah to be something your children take note of, something they will pass on to their children, then you can't delegate it -- you have to treat it like one of those important things in life, things that you make sure to take care of yourself.

R' Simcha Bunim Sofer quotes a Midrash (which I haven't found, so pls enlighten me if you can locate it) on Pharoah's question (10:8) to Moshe מִ֥י וָמִ֖י הַהֹלְכִֽים -- why the double מִ֥י וָמִ֖י (see Kli Yakar as well)? The Midrash comments that Pharoah challenged Moshe's request as unreasonable given that in the future Bnei Yisrael will one day say מי יעלה לנו בהר ה׳ ומי יקום במקום קדשׁו

What's the connection?

My chavrusa once prepared a whole shiur on this idea of "Mi yaaleh... u'mi yakum." Ascending the mountain is a great achievement, but even harder than making it to the top is sustaining yourself there. I remember as a teenager in camp that there was someone who went min ha'katzeh el ha'katzeh, what today people call flipping out. This guy gave up all his hobbies, all his outside interests, switched his wardrobe to dress pants and white shirts, and went from a background of next to no exposure to learning to doing nothing but learning. It lasted about a year or two, and then he fell back to his old self just as fast as his meteoric rise. There are a lot of people like that, people who get the mi yaaleh part, but then fail in the mi yakum. It's like people who go on these crash diets for a few weeks and lose a ton of weight, but then turn into a balloon again as soon as the diet is over. There is no mi yakum because they focused on the goal of shedding pounds quickly, but not on developing good eating habits that can make the weight loss sustainable. A person needs to go step by step, to grow gradually and adjust and accommodate to each level before trying to climb higher or it will not last.

This was Pharoah's argument. "Lchu na ha'gevarim," let those who are giborim=koveish es yitzro, those who have shown themselves already to be religiously committed, those who have been on top of the mountain for awhile, leave Egypt to serve G-d. But how can you demand that everyone, even those who, until Moshe started making demands, are no different than their Egyptian counterparts -- halalu ovdei avodah zarah v'halalu ovdei avodah zarah -- pick up suddenly and leave? רְא֕וּ כִּ֥י רָעָ֖ה נֶ֥גֶד פְּנֵיכֶֽם -- they people are still attracted to רָעָ֖ה, their same old ways, their same old lifestyle. Even if they go out and have a chag l'Hashem, it's a one time deal and they will quickly revert back to who they are now. Moshe, you are asking for a מי יעלה without considering מי יקום, and it can't work.

Pharoah indeed had a point, as we see time and again from the rebelliousness of Bnei Yisrael in the midbar. Yetzi'as Mitzrayim was a tremendous opportunity, as Hashem brought us up the ladder in one shot, על כנפי נשׁרים, but at the same time it was a tremendous challenge, as מי יעלה demands מי יקום or it is for naught.

An interesting chiddush din which Maharal derives from Rashi:

וּבַיּ֤וֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן֙ מִקְרָא־קֹ֔דֶשׁ וּבַיּוֹם֙ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מִקְרָא־קֹ֖דֶשׁ יִהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֑ם כׇּל־מְלָאכָה֙ לֹא־יֵעָשֶׂ֣ה בָהֶ֔ם אַ֚ךְ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֵאָכֵ֣ל לְכׇל־נֶ֔פֶשׁ ה֥וּא לְבַדּ֖וֹ יֵעָשֶׂ֥ה לָכֶֽם׃ (12:16)

Rashi comments: לא יעשה בהם – אפילו על ידי אחרים

Ramban asks: who is the "acheirim" that Rashi is referring to? If it is a Jew, then there already is an issur for that person to do melacha; if it is a nochri, then there is no issur d'oraysa of a nochri doing work for a Jew on Y"T or Shabbos, so that can't be what the pasuk is talking about.

Mizrachi answers that the "acheirim" here is a nochri and Rashi is just quoting an asmachta as pshat in the pasuk. (The issue here may be whether asmachta is just a mnenomic device, or whether there is some connection between the din and the words of the pasuk.) Maharal in Gur Aryeh, however, learns that "acheirim" is referring to a Jew. Aside from the issur melacha of doing work yourself on Y"T, there is a separate issur of having a Jew do work on your behalf.

Why should there be such an issur on Y"T and not on Shabbos? R' Chaim Elazari explains that aside from the aspect of each individual not doing melacha and observing Shabbos and Y"T as a personal day of rest, Y"T has an additional element of being a "mikra kodesh." Ramban in P' Emor (23:2) explains this term as meaning that Y"T is a day in which the tzibur gathers for tefilah and hallel and simcha -- it is a public holiday. (It could be according to Ramban that tefilah b'tzibur on Y"T is a kiyum d'oraysa).

What Rashi is telling us is that by having someone else do work,although you have not violated the personal aspect of resting on Y"T since you are not doing anything, you have violated the "mikra kodesh" aspect of the day by taking away from it being an all inclusive public celebration.

I don't understand R' Elazari's chiddush. In the very Ramban he refers to, the Ramban writes with respect to Shabbos: שגם הוא יום מועד, נקרא אותו מקרא קדש, According to Ramban, Shabbos is also called a mikra kodesh. So hadra kushya l'duchta, why do we only find this din mentioned with respect to Y"T and not Shabbos?

וַיֹּאפ֨וּ אֶת־הַבָּצֵ֜ק אֲשֶׁ֨ר הוֹצִ֧יאוּ מִמִּצְרַ֛יִם עֻגֹ֥ת מַצּ֖וֹת כִּ֣י לֹ֣א חָמֵ֑ץ כִּֽי־גֹרְשׁ֣וּ מִמִּצְרַ֗יִם וְלֹ֤א יָֽכְלוּ֙ לְהִתְמַהְמֵ֔הַּ וְגַם־צֵדָ֖ה לֹא־עָשׂ֥וּ לָהֶֽם

We read in the haggadah "Matzah zu she'anu ochlim al shum mah?" and the haggadah goes on to answer, as seems to be pshat in our pasuk (12:39), that the Egyptians were in such a rush to kick us out that they did not even give us time to bake bread for the road.

The Ran in Pesachim (25b in pages of RIF) infers a big chiddush from this statement. The implication of the haggadah and of the pasuk is that had we had time, we could have baked bread even though it was Pesach -- no problem of bal yera'ah!

Ramban explains the pasuk differently to avoid this conclusion:

וטעם ויאפו את הבצק – שאפו אותו מצות מפני המצוה שנצטוו: שאור לא ימצא בבתיכם כי כל אוכל מחמצת ונכרתה

ואמר כי גורשו ממצרים – לומר שאפו אותו בדרך בעבור כי גורשו ממצרים ולא יכלו להתמהמה לאפות אותו בעיר, ולשאת אותו אפוי מצות, ועל כן נשאו אותו בצק ומשארותם צרורות בשמלותם על שכמם (שמות י״ב:ל״ד), ומהרו ואפו אותו טרם יחמץ בדרך או בסכות, כשבאו שם לשעה קלה כדברי רבותינו.

The pasuk speaks about the dough אֲשֶׁ֨ר הוֹצִ֧יאוּ מִמִּצְרַ֛יִם, which they took out of Egypt and baked into matzah on the road. According to Ramban, two things the require explanation: 1) why they were eating matzah and not bread; 2) why they had to bake it on the road and not at home. The answer to the first question, the pasul tells is, is that כִּ֣י לֹ֣א חָמֵ֑ץ, because Hashem had prohibited chametz and commanded Bnei Yisrael to eat matzah. The answer to the second question is that the Egyptians rushed them out, כִּֽי־גֹרְשׁ֣וּ מִמִּצְרַ֗יִם וְלֹ֤א יָֽכְלוּ֙ לְהִתְמַהְמֵ֔הַּ.

The difficulty with the Ran (as the Tzlach points out) is that the Mishna (Pesachim 95) lists the differences between Pesach Mitzrayim and Pesach as celebrated in future years and absent from that list is the Ran's assumption that there was no prohibition of bal yera'eh on that first Pesach in Egypt.

The difficulty with Ramban is that the pshat may work well for the pasuk, but it does not fit the haggadah so well. "Matzah zu...al shum mah" sounds like we are offering an explanation for why we eat matzah, not just for why it was baked it on the road.

The Rambam (Chametz u'Matzah 6:1) formulates the mitzvah of achilas matzah as follows:

מצות עשה מן התורה לאכול מצה בליל חמשה עשר שנאמר בערב תאכלו מצות. בכל מקום ובכל זמן. ולא תלה אכילה זו בקרבן הפסח אלא זו מצוה בפני עצמה ומצותה כל הלילה. אבל בשאר הרגל אכילת מצה רשות רצה אוכל מצה רצה אוכל אורז או דוחן או קליות או פירות. אבל בליל חמשה עשר בלבד חובה ומשאכל כזית יצא ידי חובתו:

The Rambam could just as easily have said מצות עשה מן התורה לאכול **כזית** מצה בליל חמשה עשר Why the circuitous מצות עשה מן התורה לאכול מצה...משאכל כזית יצא ?

B'pashtus one would have thought that once you eat your kzayis of matzah, the mitzvah is over and if you continue stuffing your face, that's for your own pleasure alone. But it seems from the Rambam (and this is also the opinion of Maharal in Gevuros Hashem ch 48) that that's not how it works. There is a mitzvah to eat, period -- the more, the better. Every additional bite is a kiyum. If you want to do the minimum, then the Rambam at the end of the halacha tells us that you are yotzei with a k'zayis.

The gemara (Pesachim 107) relates that Rava used to drink a lot of wine on erev pesach so that he would have an appetite to eat a lot of matzah during the night. Rav Wahrman (She'eiris Yosef I:1) brings proof from this gemara to the Rambam's point. Had the mitzvah been to eat a k'zayis, there would be no point to eating more.

(Tos in Kiddushin 38 writes that you can't say aseh doche lo ta'aseh when eating a second k'zayis, but that's because dechiya depends on their being a chiyuv, not just a kiyum.)

The gemara (Sukkah 41) similarly writes that there were people who held their lulav and esrog all day, even while davening. The gemara asks how that can be when there is an issur of holding things in your hand during tefilah, and the gemara answers that taking the lulav is different because it's a mitzvah. Even though m'ikar ha'din a person is yotzei netilas lulav just by picking it up, we see from the gemara that that's just a minimum, like eating just a k'zayis of matzah, but if you do more, it also counts as a mitzvah.

The gemara (R"H 16) writes that we blow shofar during shmoneh esrei on R"H even though we already did the mitzvah before starting musaf in order to confuse the satan. Rashi comments that by blowing extra times we demonstrate our love of the mitzvah. In his sefer on chumash (shmos p50) Rav Noson Gestetner suggests that you see the same chidush from this Rashi. Had there been a defined shiur beyond which there is no kiyum, by blowing extra kolos we would just be entertaining ourselves. Rashi is telling us that the additional kolos are a mitzvah, as there is no maximum limit to "yom teru'ah."

The purpose of the makkos, says the Torah, is "l'ma'an tisaper b'oznei bincha u'ben bincha," so that we will relate what happened to our children and to our grandchildren, "v'yidatem ki ani Hashem," and to know that Hashem is the One in charge (10:2) Seforno comments that "v'yidatem" means so that YOU should know, whereas the beginning of the pasuk, "l'ma'an tisaper," is speaking about what future generations will know.

Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't the "v'yidatem" come first, i.e. don't you need to understand the lesson yourself first, and then "l'ma'an tisaper," you can give it over to your children and their children?

The lesson here between the lines is that teaching our children Torah is not just something we need to do for their sake -- it's something we need to do for our OWN sake. Teaching others is a tnai in our own understanding and yediya. The best way to solidify your own beliefs is to express them and try to impress them upon others, especially those who matter most to you, like your own children.

Moshe told Pharoah that the terrible plague of grasshoppers will be something that, "lo ra'u avosecha v'avos avosecha," the parents and grandparents of the Egyptian people had never before seen. (10:6) Why didn't the Torah just say that there was never something like this before in Egypt? Why stress specifically that their parents and grandparents had never seen anything like it?

The Sefas Emes (5644) quotes a Zohar that when a child gets married, even if c"v his/her parent has passed away and is in gan eden, the parent's neshoma is allowed to go down to the world to be at the chuppah with their child. The same is true on the opposite side of the coin as well. When the Egyptians were punished, the neshomos of their parents and grandparents were sent out of gehenom to be with their offspring on earth. The parents and grandparents of the Egyptians had never seen such grasshoppers in their lifetime -- but now, they were going to see it.

Maybe this is also part of what the Torah is telling us by putting "v'yidatem ki ani Hashem" at the end. A person may have already passed into the next world, but because they fulfilled "l'ma'an tisaper," because their children and grandchildren continue to grow in Torah, then through "b'ra mizakeh aba," they too are their vicariously sitting alongside their children and grandchildren in the beis medrash, reaping "v'yidatem ki ani Hashem" in greater measure.

On a final note, last week I posted my wife's query whether a place that women meet in for davening has kedushas beis knesset. Aruch haShulchan 154:7 writes:

וכן בית הכנסת של נשים – יש עליה קדושת בית הכנסת, כיון שהנשים מתפללות שם.

“V’higadta l’bincha bayom ha’hu leimor ba’avur zeh asah Hashem li b’tzeisi m’Mitzrayim.” There are two words that we use to mean because: ba’avur and biglal. What’s the difference between them? Ksav v’haKabbalah writes that biglal is used when a cause precedes an event: A occurred bigal B. Ba’avur anticipates some future outcome: A occurred ba’avur so that B will happen in the future. The freedom of yetziyas Mitzrayim is not an end in itself, but is just a means to some higher goal that will be achieved in the future, “ba’avur zeh.”

What is that “zeh?” He explains that the Torah uses zeh as an adjective to mean the pinnacle of greatness, the most exalted level of something. In Parhas Ki Tisa we read that Bnei Yisrael complain , “Ki zeh Moshe ha’ish lo yadanu meh ha’ya lo.” We all know the derash on “Zeh K’li v’anveyhu” about Bnei Yisrael kavyachol being able to point at G-d. The pshat is that K-li is “zeh,” the greatest, the most exalted. (See Menachos 43 for another example.) I didn’t go through all the places Ksav v’haKabbalah discusses this idea, but I was surprised that I didn’t yet find him applying it to another pasuk in our parsha: “Hachodesh hazeh lachem rosh chodashim…” The derash is that Hashem pointed to the molad to help Moshe understand, but I think the pshat is that the month of Nisan as a chashivus above and beyond all other months – it’s the best and greatest. Coming back to our pasuk, the purpose of yetziyas Mitzrayim is “zeh,” the greatest, most exalted thing. Ksav v’haKabbalah suggests that “zeh” used in that way refers to kabbalas haTorah.

“V’haya ki yomru Aleichem bneichem mah ha’avodah hazos lachem… vayikod ha’am vayishtachavu.” The Torah opens its description of this dialogue with one's children on Pesach night with the word “v’haya,” which is always a flag that tells us this is good news. Rashi writes that “vayikod… vayishtachavu” was an expression of thanksgiving. What are we so happy about and so grateful for? Chazal tell us that this parsha is speaking about the ben ha’rasha, the wicked son of the seder! What’s the big simcha about having a child that is OTD?

The Klausenberger rebbe answers that “ilu haya sham lo haya nigal,” as we read in the haggadah, but that’s exactly the point – he is not there; we are no longer there. We are not the same enslaved people we were. Kabbalas haTorah changed everything, as the transformative power of Torah has no limits. The idea that had BN”Y sunk to the 50th level of tumah they would have had no redemption, says Chasam Sofer, is true only before kabbalas haTorah. Post-Sinai, Torah can pull a person even out of that 50th level. Even if the child is a rasha, “v’amarten zevach Pesach hu,” speak words of Torah to him -- that will lead to his redemption.

Since it was a rough week and I don't have a lot to say let me share with you one other idea from the Kalusenberger: There is a strange bit of dialogue between Moshe and G-d at the burning bush. Moshe complains, “Mi anochi ki ailech el Pharoah v’ki oyzie es Bnei Yisrael m’Mitzrayim,” to which Hashem replies, “B’hotziacha es ha’am m’Mitzraayim ta’avdun es haElokim al ha’har ha’zeh.” How does G-d’s response address Moshe’s claim of unworthiness?

Rashi explains that the phrase “ki otzi es Bnei Yisrael” raised the question of what zechus BN”Y had to merit deliverance. The simple pshat is that Moshe was asking two part questions: 1) why me; 2) what merit does BN”Y have. Hashem’s answer addressed that second question. The Klausenberger learned it derech derush a little differently. Moshe was asking only one question: why me? Part two is his justification for that argument. Moshe said that the very fact that he was troubled by the question of what merit BN”Y had should automatically preclude him from being the go’el. A person who can see anything less than greatness in Klal Yisrael is unfit to be their leader.

1) The 10 makkos are split over two parshiyos: seven in Parshas Va'Eira, three in Parshas Bo. Wouldn't it make more sense to read all 10 in one parsha? Why do we split them?

The Midrash connects the pasuk in Mishlei (27:3)

The weight of a stone and burden of sand -- the anger of a fool is heaver than both.

With the "hichbadti es libo" of our parsha using an elaborate play on words.I’ll do my best to make the simple pshat here intelligible in English.

אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא: כבדתי את ישראל בעולם, שנקראו אבן, כמה דתימא (בראשית מט, כד): משם רועה אבן ישראל.
ונטל החול, אלו ישראל, שנמשלו לחול, שנאמר (הושע ב, א): והיה מספר בני ישראל כחול הים, שנטלתי אותם בעולם ואמרתי (זכריה ב, יב): כל הנוגע בהם כנוגע בבבת עינו.
ועמדו והכעיסו לפני, ובקשתי לכלותן ולהשליכן מעל פני, ואמרתי בשביל פרעה הרשע, שלא יאמר לא היה יכול להצילן ועמד עליהן והרגן.
הוי, וכעס אויל כבד משניהם.
הוי, כי אני הכבדתי את לבו:

Bnei Yisrael are called “even,” a rock: “m’sham ro’eh even Yisrael.”The Midrash reads k-v-d in the pasuk not as referring to the weight of a rock, but like the word kavod, honor -- Hashem has given us, his rock, a place of honor in the world.We are compared to the sand of the sea; the “burden of sand”alludes to Hashem taking us under his protection.However, the Jewish people angered G-d and caused him to want to lash out at them.Were he to do so, Pharoah would claim that G-d does not have the power to protect and save them.Therefore, G-d holds back his anger.More than the love G-d has for Bnei Yisrael, what protects us is the foolishness of Pharoah, the “weight” of the chilul Hashem that would be caused by allowing him to make false claims.In our parsha, Hashem tells Moshe to go to Pharoah, “ki ani hichbadti es libo.”Again using a play on words, the Midrash associates the “hichbadti” of Pharoah’s heart with the weight of foolishness referred to in Mishlei.

When life is smooth sailing, then people think that G-d is treating them nicely.When the going gets tough, then people think that G-d abandoned them and doesn’t care . The Midrash is telling us that’s not how it works. Sometimes the biggest tovah Hashem can do is to put a person in hot water. It’s not Hashem’s love, the kavod he gives us, his promise to protect us, that brought the geulah from Mitzrayim – rather, it’s the fact that Pharaoh at the end of the day can’t win, as that would be a bigger crime than any wrong we could do.“Ki ANI hichbadti es libo” – Hashem says just like I gave you kavod and protection which you know is l’tovah, I’m the one giving hardening Pharoah’s heart and in doing so am giving you an you an even bigger tovah, because it’s that hardened heart of Pharoah that is your ticket to geulah.

The NY Times thought it worthy of front page headlines last month when it reported that Pope Francis said that even animals can make it to heaven.What’s the big deal?Because the "traditional" Aristotelian view, also adopted by the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (III:17), is that there is no concept of reward and punishment for animals.According to the Rambam, only humans merit hashgacha pratis and individual reward/punishment, but Fido and Rover are no different than rocks, plants, cars or robots.

The Rambam writes that there is no source that would contradict his view, but the Torah Temimah, unlike the NY Times, did some fact checking and was not convinced.The pasuk in our parsha (11:7) relates that on the night of Pesach no dogs barked in the neighborhood of Bnei Yisrael.The Mechilta comments that the dogs received reward for their silence, as the Torah later writes that a person who has treifa meat should throw it to the dogs.The Yalkut (187) writes that in the merit of their not barking the dogs were rewarded with the ability to singing shirah and their excrement is used to tan hides that are used for tefillin, mezuzos, and sifrei Torah. Don’t these sources indicate, asks theTorah Temimah, that G-d does reward (and potentially punishes) even animals?!

Once you accept the underlying logic of the Rambam, I don’t see how that distinction works.If animals are not subject to reward/punishment because they lack the ability to choose right from wrong, then what difference does it make whether the reward/punishment is given in this world or the next?Furthermore, the Ramban in Parshas Noach (ch 9) takes the Rambam’s position a step further and writes that punishment is not given to animals even in this world:

תמה אני, אם הדרישה כמשמעה, מיד החיה כמו מיד האדם להיות עונש בדבר, ואין בחיה דעת שתיענש או שתקבל שכר. ואולי יהיה כן בעניין דם האדם לבדו, שכל החיה שתטרוף אותו תיטרף כי גזרת מלך היא, וזה טעם סקול יסקל השור ולא יאכל את בשרו

R’ Noson Gestetner gives a simpler answer to the T”T’s question. The Rambam himself writes that while Hashem does not have hashgacha pratis on individual animals, he does have hashgacha on the “min,” the species.We say every day that G-d is “masbi’a l’kol chai ratzon.”Hashgacha may not dictate that this particular lion will catch this particular gazelle for lunch today, but G-d does ensure that lions in general have food to eat and what we call nature continues on its course.In a similar vein, when the Midrash promises reward to the dogs for their silence, it does not mean this or that particular dog got a reward – it means the species of dog as a whole received a reward.What’s the difference between rewarding the species and rewarding the individual creature?R’ Gestetner suggests that the “min” of dog or other creature is governed by an angelic “sar” that can make choices and therefore can receive reward.

We all know from the haggadah shel Pesach that in giving the mitzvah of sipur yetzi’as Mitzrayim the Torah addresses itself in four different ways to the paradigmatic “four sons.”In speaking to the son who is “aino yode’a lishol,” who cannot or does not ask, the haggadah uses the same pasuk from Parshas Bo (13:8) of “V’higadta l’vincha…” which Rashi tells us alludes to the answer to the wicked son.Why does the son who cannot ask deserve the same response as the rasha, the son who openly rebels?

My son is such a R’ Ovadya Yosef admirer that he bought one of the new biographies (this is the only gadol biography I think he owns) called Abir HaRo’im that came out after R’ Ovadya’s passing.In a footnote towards the end of the book there is a story about a meeting that took place on Pesach between R’ Ovadya and another Rav whose name I apologize for not remembering (the truth is that I am not familiar with many of the names of talmidei chachamim mentioned in the book due to my ignorance of the sefardi world).In the Torah discussion that took place between them, R’ Ovadya asked why we need the derashos of “ymei chayecha – l’rabos ha’yamim” and “kol – l’rabos ha’laylos” that we are familiar with from the haggadah shel Pesach.Why could the pasuk not simply have said “l’ma’an tizkor… b’chayecha,” and we would assume (why not?) the mitzvah of zecheiras yetzi’as Mitzrayim applies 24x7?

“U’moshav Bnei Yisrael ashed yashvu b’Mitzrayim shloshim shanah v’arba me’os shanah.” (12:40)

Just before bringing the final plague of makkas bechoros Hashem told Moshe to ask Bnei Yisrael to request gold and silver from the Egyptians (11:2), "V'yishalu...klei kesef u'klei zahav." Yet, the Torah tells us (12:35) that when Bnei Yisrael carried out Moshe’s instructions, they asked for "klei kesef u'klei zahav u'semalos," for gold, silver and clothes as well. Not only did they add clothes to the list of items they asked for, but as Rashi reminds us, when the Torah gives us a list, the most important item is mentioned last -- since clothes are mentioned last, it means they were even more important to Bnei Yisrael than the gold and silver.How can that be?