Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 0.1.3

(Exodus 12:3) "Speak to the whole congregation of Israel."

R. Achai b. R. Yoshiyah says: Now did they both speak? Is it not written (Ibid. 7:2) "You (Moses) shall speak all that I shall command you"?

Moses accorded honor to Aaron and said "Teach me," and Aaron did likewise with Moses, and the speech emanated from both as if both were speaking.

"Speak to the whole congregation of Israel": The speaking was on Rosh Chodesh; the taking (of the lamb), on the tenth; and the slaughtering, on the fourteenth. You say this, but perhaps the speaking and the taking were on the tenth and the slaughtering on the fourteenth? It is, therefore, written "This month is for you. Speak, etc." When was the speaking? On Rosh Chodesh. You must revert, then, to the first formulation. The speaking was on Rosh Chodesh, the taking on the tenth, and the slaughtering on the fourteenth.

R. Acha b. R. Oshiyah says: The speaking was on Rosh Chodesh, the taking on the tenth, and the slaughtering on the fourteenth. You say this, but perhaps the speaking and the taking were on the tenth, and the slaughtering on the fourteenth? It is, therefore, written "Speak to the whole congregation of Israel, saying." Let "saying" not be written. Why is it written? To separate (between the speaking and the taking). You must posit the first formulation, then, and not the second.

R. Yossi Haglili says: The speaking was on Rosh Chodesh, the taking on the tenth, and the slaughtering on the fourteenth. You say this, but perhaps the speaking was on the tenth, and the slaughtering and the taking on the fourteenth? If is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6) "And it shall be to you for a keeping until the fourteenth." If you say this (i.e., that he may slaughter it on the tenth), you have uprooted the entire verse (from its meaning)! You must revert, then, to the first formulation.

(Ibid. 3) "On the tenth day of this month, they shall take": This tells me that only the tenth day is kasher for taking. Whence do I derive (the same for) the fourteenth day? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the tenth day, which is not kasher for slaughtering, is kasher for taking, then the fourteenth day, which is kasher for slaughtering, how much more so is it kasher for taking! Whence do I derive (the same for) the thirteenth day? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the tenth day which is not proximate to slaughtering, is kasher for taking, how much more so the thirteenth, which is proximate to slaughtering! And the same applies to the eleventh and twelfth days.

"On the tenth day of this month, they shall take": ("this") excludes the Paschal lamb of all the generations, which, unlike the Paschal lamb of Egypt, need not be taken on the tenth day, but may be taken at all times.

"they shall take for themselves": Now did they all take? The intent is to render a man's messenger akin to himself — whence the expression "A man's messenger is like the man himself."

(Ibid.) "each man, a seh for a household": Included in "seh" is a goat and a sheep, viz. (Devarim 14:4) "the seh of the sheep and the seh of the goats."

I might think that one seh suffices for all; it is, therefore, written "a seh for a household," a "household" being a family, as in (Numbers 1:2) "by their families, according to their households." If there were ten families in one household, I might think that one seh suffices for all; it is, therefore, written "a seh for a house."

(Exodus 12:4) "And if the household is too small for one lamb": We are hereby taught that a lamb can always be subscribed to or withdrawn from, so long as it has not been slaughtered, as long as it is not left as is (i.e., without owners).

R. Yehudah says: As long as one of the original party (to it) remains — so that the primary (the original subscriber) not become secondary (to the new subscribers) and the secondary, primary.

(Ibid.) "then he and his neighbor next to his house shall take it": R. Akiva says: Whence is it derived that if one wishes to make his Pesach for himself he may do so? From "then he and his neighbor shall take." R. Yishmael says: Whence is it derived that if one wishes to appoint others for his lamb he may do so? From "then he and his neighbor, etc." ("neighbor":)

(Does this mean he may appoint even) his neighbor in his roof (i.e., in another domain), or only his neighbor near him? It is, therefore, written "near his house" (but not necessarily in the same domain.)

R. Shimon b. Yochai says: "his neighbor" connotes in any event (i.e., in either domain).

(Ibid.) "according to the michsah of souls": "michsah" connotes a count, i.e., it must be slaughtered for those counted for it. If he does not slaughter it with this intent, I might think that it is nevertheless kasher. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "Each according to his eating shall you count" — Scripture repeating this to indicate that it is not kasher otherwise. ...

What is the intent of "according to the count of souls"? From (Ibid.) "A man (according to his eating"), I might think only a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman, a tumtum (one of indeterminate sex) and a hermaphrodite? It is, therefore, written "according to the count of souls." This would imply for inclusion even one who is sick and one who is old, who cannot eat an olive-size. It is, therefore, written "A man according to his eating," to exclude the above, in whose behalf the lamb is not slaughtered.

("Each according to his eating) tachosu (over) the lamb": Rebbi says: This ("tachosu") is Aramaic, as one would say to his neighbor "Kos (i.e., 'slaughter') this lamb for me." "over the lamb":

R. Yishmael says: We are hereby taught that the Paschal lamb can always be subscribed to or withdrawn from so long as it has not been slaughtered, as long as it is not left as is (i.e., without owners). R. Yitzchak says: Scripture has hereunto been speaking of a living lamb, (so that no special verse is needed for this teaching.)