Month: March 2021

EXO 14

7 and took six hundred chosen chariots and all the other chariots of Egypt with officers over all of them.

Arakhin 15a:17

The Holy One, blessed be he, said to the ministering angel of the sea: Spew out the dead Egyptians onto dry land. The ministering angel said before him: Master of the universe, is there a servant whose master gives him a gift and then takes it from him? Since the dead Egyptians were given to me for my fish to eat, how can you retract your gift? God said to the sea: I will give you one and a half times their number. Although I am taking them back now, later I will give you one and a half times as many people. In the case of the Egyptians it is stated: “Six hundred chosen chariots” (Exo 14:7), whereas with regard to Sisera, who was defeated at the Kishon River, it is written: “900 chariots of iron” (Jdg 4:13).

Pesachim 118b:5

The Gemara asks: What is this one and a half times their number? How was God’s promise fulfilled? The Gemara answers: While, with regard to Pharaoh, it is written: “Six hundred chosen chariots” (Exo 14:7), whereas, with regard to Sisera, it is written: “900 chariots of iron” (Jdg 4:13).

Rashi

בָּחוּר means chosen. This is a singular number—the idea is: each and every chariot in that number was a chosen one.

And all the other chariots of Egypt—And with these were all the rest of the chariots. And whence came all these animals required for the chariots? If you say that they were from the cattle of the Egyptians—but you know it is stated, “all the livestock of the Egyptians died” (Exo 9:6). And if you say that they belonged to the Israelites, does it not say: “our livestock also must go with us” (Exo 10:26). Then whose were they? They were of those who feared the word of the Lord and saved their livestock by bringing them into their stables (Exo 9:20). Deriving it from here R. Simeon said: The best amongst the Egyptians—kill him; the best amongst the serpents—crush its brains (Mekhilta d’Rabbi Yishmael 14:7:1).

With officers over all of them—Heb. וְשָׁלִשִׁם, army-captains, as the Targum has it.

EXO 15

2 The Lord is my strength and my song,

and he has become my salvation;

this is my God, and I will praise him,

my father’s God, and I will exalt him.

to give knowledge of salvation to his people

in the forgiveness of their sins, LUK 1:77

John Gill

To give knowledge of salvation—This is still said of John, and belongs to his work and office; though the Syriac and Arabic versions read, “that he may give”; as if it was spoken of the Lord, before whose face John was to go, and whose ways he was to prepare: by “salvation” is meant, not a temporal salvation, or a deliverance from the Roman yoke, the Jews were expecting, for John gave no intimation of any such salvation; but of a spiritual and eternal salvation, and of Christ himself, the author of it; who is often called Salvation, because he was appointed to this business, was fitted for it, and has effected it; and there is salvation in him, and in no other, the “knowledge” of this is not merely, notional and speculative, but experimental, approbative, fiducial, appropriating, sure, and certain; and is more excellent, than any other kind of knowledge whatever: and this is a “gift”; it is not what is attained to, and acquired by application, diligence, and industry, as other sort of knowledge; but is a gift of God, though in the use of means, and through the ministry of the word: and so John is said to give it ministerially, he being an instrument in the hand of God, whereby souls came to the knowledge of salvation by Christ, and believed in him: it was communicated by God through his ministry.

To his people—Meaning not the people of John the Baptist, the Jews, though it was true of God’s elect among them; but the people of Christ, and that not all mankind, who are his by creation; but a special people, whom the Father has given him, and he has purchased by his blood; whom he conquers by his grace, and makes a willing people, in the day of his power: to these, and only these, is the knowledge of salvation by Christ given; for none else are appointed to it, and for no other is it wrought out.

In the forgiveness of their sins—The sense of which is, either that salvation is by the forgiveness of sin, and lies in it, that being a principal part of it; see (Eph 1:7). Sins are debts; forgiving them is a remitting these debts, a loosing them, or the obligation to payment, which is done freely and fully, for Christ’s sake, and through his blood; and herein lies the blessedness and salvation of men; see (Rom 4:7). Or else that the knowledge of salvation was conveyed through the ministry of John, not by preaching the works of the law, but the doctrine of remission of sins, by Christ (Mar 1:4; Joh 1:29); and which is the sum and substance of the gospel, as it was ordered to be preached by Christ, and was preached by his apostles. The Alexandrian copy reads, “our sins.”

for my eyes have seen your salvation LUK 2:30

John Gill

For my eyes have seen your salvation—The Messiah, who is often so called; see (Gen 49:18; Isa 49:6; 52:10). He goes by the name of “salvation,” because the salvation of God’s elect is put into his hands, and he has undertook it; and because he is the author of it, he has fulfilled his engagements, and has accomplished what he promised to do; and because salvation is in him, it is to be had in him; and in him the true Israel of God are saved, with an everlasting salvation: and he is called “God’s salvation” because he is a Saviour of his choosing, calling, and constituting; whom he promised under the Old Testament dispensation and in the fulness of time sent; and who now appeared in human nature, and whom good old Simeon now saw, with his bodily eyes; a sight which many kings and prophets had desired, but were not favoured with; and also with the eyes of his understanding, with the spiritual eye of faith, as his Saviour and Redeemer; for without this, the former would not have been sufficient to have given such peace and tranquillity of mind, in a departure out of this world: for many saw him in the days of his flesh, who never saw his glory, as the Son of God, and Saviour of sinners; but such a sight those have, who have their understandings enlightened, and Christ, as God’s salvation, set before them: they see him in the glory of his person, the fulness of his grace, the suitableness and excellency of his righteousness, the efficacy of his blood, and the perfection of his sacrifice; and as an able, willing, complete, and only Saviour: and such a sight of him, puts them out of conceit with themselves, and their own works of righteousness, as saviours; makes the creature, and all it has and does, look mean and empty; fills the soul with love to Christ, and a high esteem of him, and with joy unspeakable, and full of glory; it transforms a soul, and makes it like to Christ; gives it inexpressible pleasure and satisfaction; and makes it desirous, as it did this good man, to depart and be with Christ, which is far better than to live in this (in some sense) state of absence from him.

You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. JOH 4:22

that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. JOH 5:23

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. ACT 4:12

that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the word of reconciliation. 2CO 5:19

John Gill

That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself—This expresses and explains the subject matter of the ministration of the gospel, especially that part of it which concerns our reconciliation with God; and declares the scheme, the author, the subjects, the way, and means, and consequence of it. The phrase, “in Christ,” may be either joined with the word “God,” as in our version, “in Christ God was reconciling”; that is, he was in Christ drawing the scheme, fixing the method of reconciliation; his thoughts were employed about it, which were thoughts of peace; he called a council of peace, and entered into a covenant of peace with Christ, who was appointed and agreed to, to be the peacemaker. Or with the word “reconciling,” thus, God “was reconciling in Christ”; that is, by Christ; and so it denotes, as before, actual reconciliation by Christ. God, in pursuance of his purposes, council, and covenant, sent his Son to make peace; and laid our sins, and the chastisement of our peace upon him; this is the punishment of sin, whereby satisfaction was made for it, and so peace with God: or with the word “world,” thus, “God was reconciling the world in Christ”; by whom are meant, not all the individuals of mankind, for these are not all in Christ, nor all reconciled to God, multitudes dying in enmity to him, nor all interested in the blessing of non-imputation of sin; whereas each of these is said of the world: but the elect of God, who are chosen in Christ, whose peace Christ is, whose sins are not imputed to them, and against whom no charge of any avail can be laid; and particularly the people of God among the Gentiles are here designed, who are frequently called “the world” in Scripture; being the world which God loved, for whose sins Christ is the propitiation, and of the reconciling of which mention is particularly made (Joh 3:16; Rom 11:12, 15; 1Jn 2:2). And this sense well agrees with the context, which signifies, that no man is regarded for his natural descent; it is no matter whether he is a Jew or a Gentile, provided he is but a new creature: for gospel reconciliation, and the ministry of it, concern one as well as another. Moreover, this reconciliation must be considered, either as intentional, or actual, or as a publication of it in the ministry of the word; and taken either way it cannot be thought to extend to every individual person in the world: if it is to be understood intentionally, that God intended the reconciliation of the world to himself by Christ, and drew the scheme of it in him, his intentions cannot be frustrated; his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure; a scheme so wisely laid by him in his Son, cannot come to nothing, or only in part be executed; and yet this must be the case, if it was his design to reconcile every individual of mankind to himself, since a large number of them are not reconciled to him: and if the words are to be understood of an actual reconciliation of the world unto God by Christ, which sense agrees with the preceding verse, then it is out of all question, that the word “world” cannot be taken in so large a sense as to take in every man and woman in the world; since it is certain that there are many who are not reconciled to God, who die in their sins, whose peace is not made with him, nor are they reconciled to the way of salvation by Christ: and should it be admitted that the ministry of reconciliation is here designed, which is not an offer of reconciliation to the world, but a proclamation or declaration of peace and reconciliation made by the death of Christ; this is not sent to all men; multitudes were dead before the word of reconciliation was committed to the apostles; and since, there have been great numbers who have never so much as heard of it; and even in the times of the apostles it did not reach to everyone then living: besides, the text does not speak of what God did by the ministry of his apostles, but of what he himself had been doing in his Son, and which was antecedent, and gave rise unto and was the foundation of their ministry. There was a scheme of reconciliation drawn in the counsels of God before the world began, and an actual reconciliation by the death of Christ, which is published in the gospel, which these words contain the sum and substance of: and this reconciliation, as before, is said to be “to himself”; to his offended justice, and for the glory of his perfections, and the reconciling of them together in the affair of salvation.

Not imputing their trespasses—This was what he resolved upon from all eternity, that inasmuch as Christ was become the surety and substitute of his people, he would not impute their sins to them, or look for satisfaction for them from them; but would reckon and place them to the account of their surety, and expect satisfaction from him; and accordingly he did, and accordingly he had it. And this will, not to impute sin to his people, or not to punish for it, which existed in God from everlasting, is no other than a justification of them; for to whom the Lord does not impute sin, he imputes righteousness, and such are properly justified.

And entrusting to us the word of reconciliation—Or put it in us, as a rich and valuable treasure; for such the doctrine of peace and reconciliation, by the blood of Christ, is; a sacred deposition, committed to the trust of faithful men, to be dispensed and disposed of for the use and purpose for which it is given them.

2 For if you refuse to let them go and still hold them,

Rashi

Hold them—As in (Deu 25:11), “and take hold of his private parts.”

but for those who are contentious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. ROM 2:8

John Gill

But for those who are contentious—This is a description of the other sort of persons to whom God will render according to their deeds, “who are of the contention”; who contend for victory, and not truth; strive about words to no profit; are quarrelsome, and sow discord among men, and in churches.

And do not obey the truth—Neither attend to the light of nature, and to that which may be known of God by it; nor regard and submit to the gospel revelation and so design both the Gentiles, which knew not God, and Jews, and others, who obey not the gospel.

But obey unrighteousness—Are servants of sin.

Wrath and fury—Wrathful or fiery fury, the hottest of his fury.

21 I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, but she repented not.

John Gill

I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality—Of idolatry. This may have respect to the time of the witnesses, the Waldenses, and others, who bore a testimony against the Romish idolatry, and reproved for it, and denounced the judgment of God in case of impenitence; and as these things were repeated time after time, this may be called a time given to repent in; just as Jezebel had a time given her to repent in, from the time that Elijah declared the word of the Lord, that the dogs should eat her: so the Jews say of the old world, that God gave them “time to repent,” but they repented not.

But she repented not—See (Rev 9:20-21); for the time for, and means leading to repentance may be given, yet if the grace of repentance itself is not given, men, either particular persons, or whole bodies of men, will never repent of their sins. The Alexandrian copy, Complutensian, Vulgate Latin, and all the Oriental versions, read, “but she would not repent.”

22 Behold, I will throw her onto a bed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, REV 2:21-22

John Gill

Behold, I will throw her onto a bed—Of sickness and languishing; and which denotes the sickly, pining, and languishing state of the church of Rome, as a just retaliation for her bed of luxury and deliciousness, adultery and idolatry, she had indulged herself in; this was threatened, and was yet to come, and began at the time of the Reformation, signified by the next church state; and, ever since, the whore of Rome has been visibly sickening and decaying. The Alexandrian copy reads, “into a prison.”

And those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation—The kings of the earth, and their subjects, who have joined in the idolatries and corruptions of the Romish church (Rev 17:2; 18:3), which may be understood either of that distress and uneasiness the Reformation in some countries gave them; or those outward troubles, wars, and desolations they have been since attended with, particularly the empire of Germany; which has been in great tribulation, formerly by the Turks, and of late by internal broils among themselves, and by the armies of other princes entering into it; or it may regard that eternal vengeance that will be recompensed to all such persons.

Unless they repent of her works—Their spiritual fornication or idolatry, and all the abominations the members of that apostate church are guilty of. There seems to be an allusion in this verse to Ahaziah and Joram, sons of Ahab and Jezebel, who followed their mother’s idolatrous practices, and were cast upon a bed of sickness (2Ki 1:2; 8:29).

They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they blasphemed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory. REV 16:9

John Gill

They were scorched by the fierce heat—Burned with rage against the followers of Christ; were filled with envy at the success of his gospel, and with fury and madness at the ruinous condition of the antichristian state, being deprived of its head, and chief officers.

And they blasphemed the name of God who had power over these plagues—Plagues or judgments are from God, when and wherever they come; they are sent and inflicted by him, and he can lessen or increase them, continue or remove them, as he pleases; and these, unless sanctified, will not reform men, but harden them, and set them a blaspheming the author of them. And this blasphemy may either respect the nature and perfections of God, charging him with inequality in his ways, and with injustice and unfaithfulness; or the gospel, and the truths of it, which declare his glory, and his greatness; and which will now have a general spread, to the great mortification and confusion of the followers of antichrist.

They did not repent and give him glory—That is, they did not repent of their wicked deeds, their idolatries, murders, sorceries, fornications, and thefts, as in (Rev 9:20-21) so as to own and confess them, which is, the meaning of giving glory to God in repentance; see (Jos 7:19). This shows that repentance is not in man’s power, but in the gift of God’s grace; for though he may give space, yet if he does not give grace to repent, no man will repent; nor will any means of themselves produce it; as not the most powerful and awakening ministry, as the ministry of John the Baptist, and of Christ, and of the gospel preachers that will be in those times, this vial refers to, nor the greatest mercies and favours, so not the severest judgments; see (Amo 6:6-11). The event of this vial, or the plague of it, is applied, by Mr. Daubuz, to the wars between the emperors and the popes, and between the Guelphs and Gibelines.

3 behold, the hand of the Lord will be upon your livestock that are in the field, the horses, the donkeys, the camels, the herds, and the flocks, a very severe plague.

Rashi

Behold, the hand of the Lord will be—The verb הוֹיָה is in the present tense, for so one says in the feminine gender of the past הָיְתָה, of the future, תִּהְיֶה, and of the present, הוֹיָה, the latter form being similar to עוֹשָֹה and רוֹצָה and רוֹעָה.

And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.” Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand. ACT 13:11

4 But the Lord will make a distinction between the livestock of Israel and the livestock of Egypt, so that nothing of all that belongs to the people of Israel shall die.

Rashi

וְהִפְלָה means will make a distinction.

5 And the Lord set a time, saying, “Tomorrow the Lord will do this thing in the land.”

63 and said, “Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise.’

64 Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away and tell the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last fraud will be worse than the first.” MAT 27:63-64

7 And Pharaoh sent, and behold, not one of the livestock of Israel was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. ROM 9:18

The Sixth Plague: Boils

8 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Take handfuls of soot from the kiln, and Moses shall cast it in the air in the sight of Pharaoh.”

Rashi

Handfuls—Old French jaloynes, double handfuls.

Soot from the kiln—The word פִּיחַ denotes a thing which is blown away (נִפָּח) from coals that have become extinguished after being burnt in a kiln; in Old French olbes. פִּיחַ is derived from a root that signifies blowing, and it so called because the wind blows it about and scatters it abroad.

And Moses shall cast it—And anything cast with force must be cast only with one hand. Hence there were here several miracles: one, that Moses single handful held his own double handfuls and those of Aaron, and another, that this dust spread itself over the entire land of Egypt (Midrash Tanchuma, Vaera 14; Shemot Rabbah 11:8).

9 It shall become fine dust over all the land of Egypt, and become boils breaking out in sores on man and beast throughout all the land of Egypt.”

Rashi

Boils—Heb. שְׁחִין, an expression of heat. There are many examples of its use in the language of the Mishnah (Yoma 53b): “a hot (שְחוּנַה) year.”

Boils breaking out in sores—Render it as the Targum does: boils growing sores, through which blisters break out.

So the first angel went and poured out his bowl on the earth, and harmful and painful sores came upon the people who bore the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. REV 16:2

10 So they took soot from the kiln and stood before Pharaoh. And Moses threw it in the air, and it became boils breaking out in sores on man and beast.

Bava Kamma 80b:12

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here it is referring to moist sores; whereas there it is referring to dry sores, which are more dangerous than moist ones. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The boils that the Holy One, blessed be he, brought upon the Egyptians were moist on the outside and dry on the inside, as it is stated: “And it became boils breaking out with oozing on man and beast” (Exo 9:10). The phrase “breaking out” is referring to the exterior of the wound. Since the verse specifies that the outside was oozing with secretions, it can be inferred that the inside was dry. This indicates that the sores can be of either type.

Bekhorot 41a:10

Rather, there are three types of garav: First, the garav of the verse that deals with blemishes, which is dry both on the inside and on the outside. This cannot be healed, and it is called ḥares in Deuteronomy. The second is the garav of the mishna, which can be healed, and is moist on the outside and inside. Third, the garav of Egypt, mentioned in Deuteronomy as one of the types of boils of Egypt. This garav is dry on the inside and therefore cannot be healed, but it is moist on the outside, as it is written with regard to the plague of boils in Egypt: “And it became boils breaking out in avabu’ot on man and animal” (Exo 9:10). Avabu’ot is referring to a substance that pours out and is moist.

Rashi

On man and beast—If you ask, “Whence did they obtain these beasts? Has it not already been stated (v. 6), ‘all the livestock of the Egyptians died’?” I reply that this judgment was decreed only upon those in the fields, as it is said (v. 3), “upon your livestock that are in the field,” and everyone who feared the Lord took his livestock into the houses. So it is taught in the Mechilta in the comment on (Exo 14:7) “And took six hundred chosen chariots.”

11 And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils, for the boils came upon the magicians and upon all the Egyptians.

8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith.

9 But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men. 2TI 3:8-9

12 But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had spoken to Moses.

10 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in anguish

11 and cursed the God of heaven for their pain and sores. They did not repent of their deeds. REV 16:10-11

14 For this time I will send all my plagues on you yourself, and on your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is none like me in all the earth.

Rashi

All my plagues—We may gather from this that the plague of the firstborn is equivalent to all the plagues.

For this reason her plagues will come in a single day,

death and mourning and famine,

and she will be burned up with fire;

for mighty is the Lord God who has judged her. REV 18:8

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, REV 22:18

The Covenant Renewed

10 And he said, “Behold, I am making a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been created in all the earth or among all the nations. And all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the Lord, for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you.”

Rashi

I am making a covenant about this.

Before all your people I will do marvels—An expression of the same meaning as “and we shall be distinguished” (Exo 33:16), meaning that you shall be different from all the pagan nations, that my glory will not rest upon them.

Rosh Hashanah 17b:7

Rav Yehuda said: A covenant was made with the thirteen attributes that they will not return empty-handed, meaning that if one mentions them, he will certainly be answered, as it is stated in this regard: “Behold, I am making a covenant” (Exo 34:10).

14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),

Chullin 62b:9

Rav Pappa says: The bird known as the reclining and eating mardu is permitted, while the bowing and eating mardu is forbidden. And your mnemonic to remember this is the verse: “You shall worship no other god” (Exo 34:14). Shmuel says: The bird called the wine drinker is forbidden. And your mnemonic to remember this is the halakha: Those who drank wine are unfit for service in the temple. And Shmuel says: The bird called the wine pourer is forbidden.

Gittin 57b:16

They then brought in another son, and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: I cannot do so, as it is written in the law: “You shall worship no other god” (Exo 34:14). And so they took him out and killed him. They then brought in yet another son, and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: I cannot do so, as it is written in the law: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deu 6:4). And so they took him out and killed him.

Horayot 4a:20

The Gemara cites proof against the statement of Rav Yehuda, citing Shmuel. We learned in the mishna: The judges are liable if they said: There is a prohibition against engaging in idol worship written in the law, but one who bows to the idol but did not sacrifice an offering is exempt. The Gemara asks: And why should they be liable in that case? With regard to one who bows to an idol, isn’t it written in the law, as it is written: “You shall not bow to another god” (Exo 34:14)?

Rashi

Whose name is Jealous—Who is zealous to exact punishment and is not indulgent. This is the meaning of every expression of jealousy wherever it is used in connection with God. He maintains (insists upon) his superiority over other gods, and punishes his enemies (those who worship idols).

Sanhedrin 60b:12

The baraita asks: We have heard the punishment for bowing down to an idol, but from where is the prohibition against doing so derived? The baraita answers that the verse states: “For you shall bow to no other god” (Exo 34:14).

Sanhedrin 63a:2

The Gemara asks: And does Abaye actually say this? But doesn’t Abaye say: Why are there three mentions in the law of the prohibition against bowing to an object of idol worship? The prohibition against bowing to an idol appears three times: “You shall not bow to them or worship them” (Exo 20:5), “You shall not bow to their gods nor serve them” (Exo 23:24), and “For you shall bow to no other god” (Exo 34:14).

Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written,

“ ‘You shall worship the Lord your God

and him only shall you serve.’ ” MAT 4:10

Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? 1CO 10:22

16 and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters whore after their gods and make your sons whore after their gods.

Avodah Zarah 36b:9

The Gemara rejects this: The prohibition concerning a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a Gentile woman is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, not a rabbinic ordinance. As the Master said: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman, zealots may attack him, as Phinehas did to Zimri in the wilderness (see Num 25:6–8).

18 You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the time appointed in the month of Abib, for in the month of Abib you came out from Egypt.

Rashi

The month of Abib—The month of early ripening, when the grain is in its first stage of ripening.

It was now two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth and kill him, MAR 14:1

Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover. LUK 22:1

and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread. ACT 12:3

22 You shall observe the Feast of Weeks, the first of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year.

Menachot 84b:4

The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that the two loaves precede the bringing of the firstfruits as well? The verse states: “You shall observe a Feast of Weeks, the first of the wheat harvest” (Exo 34:22). The order of the verse teaches that the offering of the feast, which is the two loaves offering, precedes the bringing of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest. I have derived only that the two loaves precede the firstfruits of the wheat harvest. From where do I derive that they also precede the bringing of the firstfruits of the barley harvest? The verse states with regard to the Feast of Weeks: “You shall keep the Feast of Harvest, of the firstfruits of your labor, of what you will sow in the field” (Exo 23:16). The order of the verse teaches that the offering of the feast, which is the two loaves offering, precedes all forms of firstfruits that are sown in the field, which includes barley.

Menachot 84b:6

The baraita continues: From this verse, I have derived only that the two loaves precede the bringing of produce that grew in a field. From where do I derive to include even produce that grew on a roof, or that grew in a ruin, or that grew in a flowerpot, or that grew on a ship? The verse states with regard to the priestly gifts: “The first fruit of all that grows in their land, which they shall bring to the Lord, shall be yours” (Num 18:13). The term “first fruits” in this verse is referring to all types of first fruits. This teaches that when the two loaves are referred to as the first fruits (see Exo 34:22), the intention is that they should be brought first before all other types of produce.

Rashi

The first—It is so called because it is the first meal offering which is brought in the temple of the new wheat crop; for the meal offering of the omer which had already been brought on Passover was of barley (Menachot 84a).

The first of the wheat harvest—This is the feast on which you offer the two loaves of wheat (Lev 23:17).

And the Feast of Ingathering—Which falls at the time you gather your produce from the field into the barns. This gathering is a term denoting bringing in as (Deu 22:2) “You shall take it home to your house” (cf. Rashi on Exo 23:16 and on Gen 49:29).

תְּקוּפַת is a term denoting going round.

At the end of the year—Which is at the return of the year, at the beginning of the coming year.

Now the Jews’ Feast of Booths was at hand. JOH 7:2

When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. ACT 2:1

24 For I will cast out nations before you and enlarge your borders; no one shall covet your land, when you go up to appear before the Lord your God three times in the year.

Pesachim 8b:1

This person is a full-fledged righteous person as far as that commandment is concerned? These ulterior motives, e.g., seeking a reward, do not detract from the value of the commandment. The Gemara answers: There is still concern lest he look for the needle after he searched for leaven and completed the search. There is danger that since he already completed the commandment, its merit will not protect him when he is searching for the needle.

Pesachim 8b:7

The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda says: With regard to that which the law said: “No one shall covet your land, when you go up to appear before God your Lord three times in the year” (Exo 34:24), this teaches that your cow shall graze in the meadow and no beast will harm it, and your rooster shall peck in the garbage dump and no marten shall harm it. In other words, your property will be protected while everyone ascends to Jerusalem for the feast, despite the fact that the farm will not be defended.

26 The best of the firstfruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God. You shall not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.

Chullin 115b:1

Is that derivation that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught ugly, that you derive a new one? The verse states with regard to an animal’s blood: “You shall not eat it; you shall pour it out on the earth like water” (Deu 12:24), and the next verse adds: “You shall not eat it, that all may go well with you and with your children after you.” Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teaches that the redundant second verse is not referring to the prohibition of blood. Rather, the verse is speaking of the prohibition of meat cooked in milk, teaching that it is prohibited for consumption.

Rashi

The best of the firstfruits of your ground—But only from the seven kinds of produce which are mentioned as an excellency of your land (Deu 8:8) “A land of wheat and barley, of vines, fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and honey” (Mishnah Bikkurim 1:3). That is the honey of dates.

You shall not cook a young goat—This is a prohibition to mix meat with milk. This is written three times in the law: once to prohibit the eating of such mixture, once to prohibit us from deriving any other benefit from it and once to prohibit the cooking of it (Chullin 115b; cf. Rashi on Exo 23:19).

A young goat—Heb. גְּדִי. Any tender young animal is meant, even a calf or a lamb. From the fact that the writer felt it necessary to state specifically in several passages “a young goat” you may learn that the term גְּדִי without further definition implies any suckling (Chullin 113a; cf. Rashi on Exo 23:19).

In its mother’s milk—A fowl is therefore really excluded from this law since it has no milk; for the prohibition regarding it is not a Biblical law but only an enactment of the scribes (Chullin 113a).

But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. MAT 6:33

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 1CO 15:20

Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. JAS 1:18

2 Be ready by the morning, and come up in the morning to Mount Sinai, and present yourself there to me on the top of the mountain.

Rashi

נָכוֹן means ready.

3 No one shall come up with you, and let no one be seen throughout all the mountain. Let no flocks or herds graze opposite that mountain.

Beitzah 5b:4-5

And if you say an alternative explanation, that the instruction to “return to your tents” was not given to permit the men to return home to their wives, but rather it came as a special command to fulfill the commandment of conjugal rights, i.e., the obligation of a man to engage in periodic marital relations with his wife, then it was to refute this possibility that Rav Yosef continued: Come and hear a different proof from another verse: “When the trumpet sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain” (Exo 19:13).

Now since it is written: “Let no flocks or herds graze opposite that mountain” (Exo 34:3), this indicates that the prohibition applies only when the divine presence is revealed on the mountain, and it is permitted immediately afterward. If so, why do I need the verse “When the trumpet sounds a long blast”? Why is a special signal required? Conclude from this that any matter established by a vote requires another vote to permit it.

Rashi

No one shall come up with you—Because the first tablets were given amidst great noises and alarms and a vast assembly the “evil eye” had power over them—there is no finer quality than to be unostentatious (Midrash Tanchuma 3:9:31).

Taanit 21b:4

Upon hearing this impressive argument, Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Let the master arise and come to live with us as our community leader. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: We already learned in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: It is not the place of a person that honors him; rather, the person honors his place, as we found with regard to Mount Sinai, that as long as the divine presence rested upon it, the law said: “Let no flocks or herds graze opposite that mountain” (Exo 34:3). Once the divine presence departed from the mountain, the law said: “When the trumpet sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain” (Exo 19:13). This indicates that the sanctity was not inherent to the place but was due to the divine presence resting there.

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 1TI 2:5

For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” HEB 12:20

4 So Moses cut two tablets of stone like the first. And he rose early in the morning and went up on Mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded him, and took in his hand two tablets of stone.

Shabbat 86a:6

The Gemara explains the source of this opinion: He ascended Mount Sinai early in the morning, as it is written: “And he rose early in the morning and went up on Mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded him” (Exo 34:4). And he descended the mountain early in the morning, as it is written: “Go down, and you shall ascend bringing Aaron with you” (Exo 19:24). The law juxtaposes descent to ascent to establish that just as Moses’ ascent was early in the morning, so too, his descent was early in the morning. Moses told the people to separate in the early morning so that there would be five complete periods of separation over the course of the three days.

5 The Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord.

Rashi’s Commentary

And proclaimed the name of the Lord—We render this in the Targum by, and proclaimed the name of the Lord.

34 As he was saying these things, a cloud came and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud.

35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!” LUK 9:34-35

6 The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,”

Arakhin 8b:13

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rav Yehuda and Rabba disagree? The Gemara answers that they disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, about how God applies his attribute of “abounding in steadfast love” (Exo 34:6) when he judges a person whose merits and sins are equal. As it was stated that Rabbi Elazar says: He hides away some sins and does not put them on the scale, thereby allowing the merits to outweigh the sins. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: He lifts the side of the scale that holds the sins so that the merits outweigh the sins.

Bava Kamma 50b:1

In the verse that recounts the thirteen attributes of mercy: “Slow to anger [erekh appayim]” (Exo 34:6), using the plural form, and it is not written as erekh af, in the singular? In order to teach that he is slow to anger for both the righteous and for the wicked and does not punish them immediately for their transgressions.

Eruvin 22a:6

In a similar vein, Rabbi Ḥaggai said, and some say it was Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, merciful and gracious, slow to anger [erekh appayim], and abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exo 34:6)? Why does it say “erekh appayim,” using a plural form? It should have said erekh af, using the singular form.

Rashi

The Lord, the Lord—This is the attribute of divine mercy. The one alludes to God having mercy on the sinner before he sins and the other after he has sinned and repented (Rosh Hashanah 17b).

God—This is also an attribute of divine mercy. Thus also does Scripture say (Psa 22:2), “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”—for surely one would not say to the attribute of stern justice “why have you forsaken me?” Thus have I found in the Mekhilta d’Rabbi Yishmael 15:2:2.

Slow to anger—He defers his anger and does not hasten to punish—it may be that the sinner will repent.

And abounding in steadfast love—To those who need steadfast love because they have not sufficient merits.

And faithfulness—Faithfully rewarding those who perform his will.

Rosh Hashanah 17b:4

Ilfai, and some say it was the Sage Ilfa, also raised a contradiction: It is written in the list of God’s attributes: “And abounding in steadfast love” (Exo 34:6), and it is written in the same verse: “And faithfulness,” which implies the attribute of justice. He answered: Initially, at the time of judgment: “And faithfulness,” i.e., God employs strict justice, but in the end, when he sees that the world cannot survive on judgment based only on faithfulness and justice: “And abounding in steadfast love,” i.e., he is merciful.

Rosh Hashanah 17b:5

The verse states: “The Lord passed before him and proclaimed” (Exo 34:6). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Were it not explicitly written in the verse, it would be impossible to say this, as it would be insulting to God’s honor. The verse teaches that the Holy One, blessed be he, wrapped himself in a prayer shawl like a prayer leader and showed Moses the structure of the order of the prayer. He said to him: Whenever the Jewish people sin, let them act before me in accordance with this order. Let the prayer leader wrap himself in a prayer shawl and publicly recite the thirteen attributes of mercy, and I will forgive them.

Rosh Hashanah 17b:6

The verse continues: “The Lord, the Lord,” and it should be understood as follows: I am he before a person sins, and I am he after a person sins and performs repentance, as God does not recall for him his first sins, since he is always “God merciful and gracious” (Exo 34:6).

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. JOH 1:17

Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? ROM 2:4

20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. ROM 5:20-21

7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight EPH 1:7-8

7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; yet he does not completely clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.

Berakhot 7a:26

The Gemara expands upon these righteous and wicked individuals: The master said: The righteous person who prospers is a righteous person, the son of a righteous person. The righteous person who suffers is a righteous person, the son of a wicked person. The Gemara asks: Is it so that one is always punished for his ancestors’ transgressions? Isn’t it written: “Visiting iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation” (Exo 34:7). And it is written elsewhere: “Fathers shall not die because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall die for his own transgression” (Deu 24:16). And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the two verses.

Rashi

Keeping steadfast love—That a person does in his presence.

For thousands—To two thousand generations.

Iniquity and transgression—Iniquities (עִוֹנוֹת) are sins committed presumptuously (with premeditation). פְּשָׁעִים are sins committed rebelliously.

Yet he does not completely clear the guilty—According to its plain sense this means that he does not completely overlook the iniquity but exacts retribution for it little by little. Our Rabbis, however, interpreted this expression to mean: He clears those who repent, but does not clear those who will not repent (Yoma 86a).

Visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children—When they retain in their hands (follow the example of) the evil doings of their fathers. This must be the meaning because in another verse of a similar character it has already been stated: of those who hate me (cf. Exo 20:5).—from Berakhot 7a; Sanhedrin 27b

And the fourth generation—It follows, therefore, that the measure of good (reward) is greater than the measure of punishment in the proportion of one to five hundred, for in respect to the measure of good it says: “Keeping steadfast love for thousands” (cf. Rashi above: Tosefta Sotah 4:1; see also Rashi on Exo 20:5).

Sanhedrin 27b:16

The Gemara asks: And are children not put to death for the sin of the fathers? But isn’t it written: “Visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation” (Exo 34:7)?

Shevuot 39a:16

The Gemara asks: And is it not stated with regard to all of the other transgressions in the law that God “will not hold guiltless [lo yenakkeh]” one who transgresses? But isn’t it written: “And who does not completely clear the guilty [venakkeh lo yenakkeh]” (Exo 34:7)?

8 And Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth and worshiped.

Rashi

And Moses quickly—When Moses saw that the glory passed by and heard the sound of the proclamation he immediately worshiped.

EXO 22

27 You shall not revile a judge, nor curse a ruler of your people.

Rashi

You shall not revile a judge—Heb. אֱלֹהִים. This is a warning against cursing God and a warning against cursing a judge.

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?

35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—“ JOH 10:34-35

John Gill

If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—The Syriac version reads, “because the word of God came to them”; either the divine “logos,” the essential word, the Son of God, who appeared to Moses, and made him a God to Pharaoh, and who appointed rulers and magistrates among the Jews; and who is the King of kings and Lord of lords, from whom all receive their power and dominion: this sense is favoured by the Ethiopic version, which renders it, “if he called them gods to whom God appeared, the word of God was with them”: or else the commission from God, authorizing them to act in the capacity of rulers and governors, is here meant; or rather the word of God, which, in the passage of Scripture cited, calls them so, as it certainly does.

And Scripture cannot be broken—Or be made null and void; whatever that says is true, there is no contradicting it, or objecting to it: it is a Jewish way of speaking, much used in the Talmud; when one doctor has produced an argument, or instance, in any point of debate, another says, “it may be broken”; or objected to, in such and such a manner, and be refuted: but the Scripture cannot be broken, that is not to be objected to, there can be no confutation of that.

3 Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?”

John Gill

Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you”—Which may be considered either as a prophecy of what would be, that God would strike him with some judgment here, or with death quickly, or with eternal damnation hereafter; taking up his own words, and suggesting that a retaliation would be made, and that the measure he meted, would be measured to him again; or else as an imprecation upon him; for the words may be rendered, “may God strike you”; the future tense being often used by the Jews for the imperative, and that in this very phrase; for certain it is, that this is the form of an imprecation with them: for it is said, if anyone should say, “may God strike,” or “so may God strike”; this is “a curse,” written in the law; though this instance of the apostle ought not to be drawn into example, any more than those of other saints, who might be under a direction of the Holy Spirit to deliver out such things, which would come to pass in righteous judgment: and if this was Ananias, the son of Nebedaeus, as is generally thought, it is remarkable, that five years after this, in the beginning of the wars of the Jews with the Romans, this Ananias, hiding himself under the ruins of a conduit, was discovered, and taken out, and killed.

You whitewashed wall—Or hypocrite, in like manner as Christ compares the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees to whitewashed tombs (Mat 23:27).

Are you sitting to judge me according to the law—The law of Moses, which was the rule of judgment in the Sanhedrin, at least professed to be, and which was allowed of by the Romans, especially in matters relating to the Jewish religion.

And yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?—Which condemns no man before he is heard, and much less punishes him (Joh 7:51) and which is contrary not only to the Jewish laws, but to the Roman laws, and all others founded upon the law of nature and reason.

5 And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’ ” ACT 23:3, 5

1 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,

2 to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. TIT 3:1-2

Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. 1PE 2:17

and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.

Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, 2PE 2:10

Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. JUD 1:8

EXO 23

6 You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his lawsuit.

Rashi

Your poor—An expression of desiring, meaning one who is impoverished and desires all good things.

5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?

6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? JAS 2:5-6

16 You shall keep the Feast of Harvest, of the firstfruits of your labor, of what you sow in the field. You shall keep the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in the fruit of your labor from the field.

Chagigah 18a:2

And Reish Lakish said, providing a different proof: From the very name of the day: “The Feast of Harvest” (Exo 23:16), we can learn the following: On which feast do you celebrate and harvest? You must say it is the Feast of Weeks. When exactly does this apply? If we say that it is on the feast day itself, is harvesting permitted on a feast? Rather, is it not referring to the day of redress?

Chagigah 18a:3

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: However, if that is so, you should likewise say with regard to “the Feast of Gathering” (Exo 23:16): On which feast is there gathering? You must say it is the Feast of Booths. When exactly? If we say it is on the feast day itself, is labor permitted on a feast? Rather, it is referring to the intermediate feast days. But on the intermediate feast days, too, is it permitted? One may perform only work that, if neglected, would result in irretrievable loss. Rather, you must explain that “the Feast of Gathering” is referring to the season of the year, i.e., the feast that occurs during the time of gathering. Here too: “The Feast of Harvest” means a feast that occurs during the time of harvest.

Menachot 71a:6

Rather, Rava said that the source of the halakha is the verse: “The Feast of Harvest, of the firstfruits of your labor, of what you sow in the field” (Exo 23:16). This verse is referring to grain from the time of sowing, i.e., from when the grain takes root. Rav Pappa said to Rava: If so, then even though the grain had not taken root it should be permitted by the omer offering. The verse mentions grain at the time of sowing, but it does not indicate that it is necessary for that grain to have taken root in order to be permitted by the omer. Rava said to Rav Pappa in reply: Wise one! It is written: “In the field,” which indicates that the verse is referring to freshly sown produce that has become part of the field, i.e., it has taken root.

Menachot 84b:4

The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that the two loaves precede the bringing of the firstfruits as well? The verse states: “You shall observe the Feast of Weeks, the first of the wheat harvest” (Exo 34:22). The order of the verse teaches that the offering of the feast, which is the two loaves offering, precedes the bringing of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest. I have derived only that the two loaves precede the firstfruits of the wheat harvest. From where do I derive that they also precede the bringing of the firstfruits of the barley harvest? The verse states with regard to the Feast of Weeks: “The Feast of Harvest, of the firstfruits of your labor, of what you will sow in the field” (Exo 23:16). The order of the verse teaches that the offering of the feast, which is the two loaves offering, precedes all forms of firstfruits that are sown in the field, which includes barley.

Menachot 84b:5

From this verse, I have derived only that the two loaves precede the bringing of the firstfruits that sprouted from seeds you sowed, as the verse states: “Of what you will sow.” From where do I derive that they precede even the bringing of firstfruits that sprouted by themselves? The continuation of that verse states: “In the field” (Exo 23:16). The term is superfluous and serves to include even produce that sprouted by itself.

Menachot 84b:7

The baraita concludes: From where is it derived that the offering of the two loaves is to precede both the bringing of drink offerings from grapes of the new crop and the bringing of the firstfruits of the tree? It is stated here, with regard to the two loaves: “The firstfruits of your labor” (Exo 23:16), and it is stated there at the end of that verse: “When you gather in the products of your labor from the field.” Just as there, the term “your labor” is referring both to fruits used for the drink offerings and the fruit of the tree, so too, here, the term is referring to both fruits used for the drink offerings and the fruit of the tree.

Rashi

The Feast of Harvest—This is the Feast of Weeks.

The firstfruits of your labor which is the time for bringing the firstfruits, for the two loaves that were brought on the Feast of Weeks and serve to permit the new grain to be used for grain offerings (Menachot 68b), and to bring the firstfruits into the temple (Mishnah Bikkurim 1:3), for it is said (Num 28:26), “And on the day of the firstfruits, etc.” (cf. Rashi on that verse).

The Feast of Ingathering—That is the Feast of Booths.

When you gather in the fruit of your labor—For during the whole summer-time the grain dries out in the fields, and on the Feast of Booths, they gather it into the barns because of the rain that is then due.

Rosh Hashanah 13a:2

The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written: “The Feast of Gathering, which is at the end of the year, when you have gathered in your labor from the field” (Exo 23:16). What is the meaning of “Gathering”? If we say that it means: A feast that comes at the time of gathering the crops, isn’t it already written: “When you have gathered in your labor”? There is no need to repeat this a second time.

2 Now the Jews’ Feast of Booths was at hand.

37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.” JOH 7:2, 37

When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. ACT 2:1

The Feast of Unleavened Bread

3 Then Moses said to the people, “Remember this day in which you came out from Egypt, out of the house of slavery, for by a strong hand the Lord brought you out from this place, and leavened bread shall not be eaten.”

Pesachim 21b:5

Ḥizkiya said: From where is it derived in the mishna that it is prohibited to derive benefit from leavened bread on Passover? As it is stated: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” (Exo 13:3). Since the verse uses the passive, it should be understood as follows: There shall be no permitted consumption of it at all, even deriving benefit, as benefit could be exchanged for money, which could be used to buy food. The Gemara reads precisely: The reason deriving benefit is prohibited is that the Merciful One writes in the law: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten.” Had the law not written: “Shall not be eaten,” and instead used the active form: You shall not eat, I would have said that the prohibition of eating is implied but that the prohibition of deriving benefit is not implied.

Pesachim 28b:4

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains: There are three verses that are written with regard to this prohibition, and in Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion each one teaches that the prohibition applies at a different time. One verse states: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” (Exo 13:3). Another verse states: “And all that which is leavened you shall not eat; in all your dwelling places you shall eat unleavened bread” (Exo 12:20). And a third verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it” (Deu 16:3). One verse indicates that there is a prohibition against eating leavened bread even before its time, on Passover eve. One verse indicates that there is a prohibition against eating leavened bread after its time as well, if a Jew owned it during Passover. And one verse indicates that the prohibition applies during Passover itself.

Pesachim 29a:5

The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the opinion of Rava, this explanation is consistent with that which was taught in the mishna: Leavened bread that belonged to a Jew is forbidden because it is stated: “It shall not be seen” (Exo 13:7). According to this explanation, the connection between the prohibition against deriving benefit from leavened bread that was owned by a Jew during Passover and the verse prohibiting seeing leaven during Passover is clear. The prohibition against deriving benefit from this leavened bread is a rabbinically instituted fine for transgressing the prohibition of “It shall not be seen.” But according to the opinion of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, which states that our mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and which renders forbidden by law deriving benefit from leavened bread that was owned by a Jew during Passover, why is this verse cited? The mishna should have said that it is forbidden due to the verse “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” (Exo 13:3), as that is the verse from which Rabbi Yehuda derives this prohibition.

Pesachim 96b:1

Rather, it refers to leavened bread, which is prohibited all seven days of Passover in the generations following the exodus. The Gemara asks: Does this prove by inference that during the Passover of Egypt, leaven was prohibited for only one night and not more? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: From where is it derived with regard to the Passover of Egypt that its prohibition of leavened bread applied for only one day? The verse states: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” (Exo 13:3), and juxtaposed to it the verse states: “Today . . . you are going out” (Exo 13:4), to teach that the prohibition of leaven applied in Egypt for only one day. In any event, the prohibition applied for an entire night and day, and not just one night.

Rashi

Remember this day—This teaches that one must make mention of the exodus from Egypt every day (Mekhilta d’Rabbi Yishmael 13:3; cf. Rashi on Deuteronomy 27:9).

As you enter the house, greet it. MAT 10:12

John Gill

As you enter the house—Or the “house”; that is, the house of an hospitable man, when, upon inquiry, found out:

Greet it—Meaning the inhabitants of it; or, as the Persic version reads, those of the household, especially the master of the family. Some copies add, saying, peace be to this house, as in (Luk 10:5) and so read the Vulgate Latin, and Munster’s Hebrew Gospel; and is a very just, and proper explanation of saluting: for the usual form of salutation among the Jews was in such words; of which (See Gill on Mat 5:47) by which is meant all kind of happiness, and prosperity, temporal, spiritual, and eternal.

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” LUK 22:19

John Gill

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks—Or blessed it, as in (Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22). Here begins the account of the Lord’s upper after the Passover was eaten.

He broke it and gave it to them—The disciples, as is expressed in (Mat 26:26).

Saying, “This is my body”—(See Gill on Matthew 26:26.)

Which is given for you—Or will be given for you, as an offering for sin in your room and stead; and accordingly it was given into the hands of men, and of justice, and unto death. The phrase denotes the substitution and sacrifice of Christ in the room of his people, and the voluntariness of it; and is only mentioned by Luke in this account: the Apostle Paul writes, which is broken for you (1Co 11:24) alluding to the breaking of the bread in the ordinance, and as expressing the bruises, wounds, sufferings, and death of Christ: the Ethiopic version here adds, “for the redemption of many.”

Do this in remembrance of me—That is, eat this bread in remembrance of my love to you, and in commemoration of my body being offered up for you. Observe this ordinance in the manner I now institute it, in time to come, in memory of what I am about to do for you; for this direction does not only regard the present time and action, but is intended as a rule to be observed by the churches of Christ in all ages, to his second coming: and it is to be observed, that the Lord’s supper is not a reiteration, but a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ. This phrase is only mentioned by Luke here, and by the Apostle Paul, who adds it also at the drinking of the cup (1Co 11:24-25). The Persic version here reads, “do this perpetually in remembrance of me.”

Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 1CO 5:8

and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 1CO 11:24

and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might EPH 1:19

John Gill

And what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe—The objects of the divine power here intended, are believers in Christ; which distinguishes this power from that which was put forth in creation, and from that which will be displayed in the resurrection of the dead, and from the power of divine wrath, which will appear in the damnation of sinners; and shows, that this power is that which is exerted in the implantation of faith, and in the continuance of it, and in the finishing of that work; and that this is a great power, an exceeding great one, a super eminent one; which is attended with energy and efficacy, and is irresistible and insuperable: the greatness of this power as displayed in the work of conversion and faith appears, if it be considered what the work itself is called, a creation, a resurrection from the dead, a regeneration, and a transformation of the man into another man, which must needs require Almighty power; as well as what is then done, some things are removed, Satan is dispossessed, the stony heart is taken away, the enmity is slain, the old man is put down from his throne, and put off with his deeds; and there are some things wrought, Christ is formed in the soul, his grace is implanted, his image is stamped on, a new heart is given, and principles of light and life, of grace and holiness are put; the understanding is enlightened, the will is subdued, the affections are set on other objects, and the mind and conscience are cleansed and purified; and the means of this are the ministers, and ministry of the word, which are weak, foolish, and contemptible, in the eyes of men; to which may be added, the opposition made both from within and from without, from a sinful heart, a tempting devil, and an ensnaring, reproaching, and persecuting world: so that this work of faith cannot be ascribed to anything short of the exceeding greatness of divine power; and which is seen in supporting faith when it is wrought, under great discouragements; in delivering believers out of divers temptations; in assisting them to discharge their duty, and in their final perseverance: and to increase the idea of this power it is added.

According to the working of his great might—Or “according to the energy of his great might”: the strength of his might, in all the great energy of it, is exerted towards and upon believers; and which they should know, own, and acknowledge, to the glory of the grace of God: and this is in proportion, and agreeably to that might.

4 Today, in the month of Abib, you are going out.

Pesachim 28b:6

The verse “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” is also required for another halakha. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: From where is it derived that the prohibition against eating leavened bread during the first Passover in Egypt applied for only one day? The verse states: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten,” and this is juxtaposed to the verse that states: “Today, in the month of Abib, you are going out” (Exo 13:4). This indicates that the prohibition against eating leavened bread during the first Passover in Egypt applied for only that one day.

Rashi

In the month of Abib—But would we not know in which month they went out? But Moses said to them: See the kindness which God has bestowed on you—that he took you out in a month that is fitted for going out, not hot, nor cold nor rainy. In the same sense it says (Psa 68:7) “He leads out the prisoners to prosperity (בַּכּוֹשָׁרוֹת),” in a month that is fitted (כָּשֵׁר) for going out (Mekhilta d’Rabbi Yishmael 13:4:1).

7 Unleavened bread shall be eaten for seven days; and leavened bread shall not be seen with you, and leaven shall not be seen with you in all your territory.

Beitzah 7b:14

That opinion is also taught in a baraita. The verse states: “And leavened bread shall not be seen with you, and leaven shall not be seen with you in all your territory” (Exo 13:7). This obligation to remove leavened bread is subject to a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: The measure that determines liability for removal of leaven is an olive-bulk, and the measure for leavened bread is a large date-bulk, and Beit Hillel say: The measure for both this and that is an olive-bulk. This baraita indicates that the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is with regard to the obligation to remove leavened bread, not liability for eating it.

Pesachim 5b:2

The Sages taught in a baraita: “For seven days no leaven is to be found in your houses” (Exo 12:19). To what purpose does the verse state this prohibition? Wasn’t it already stated: “And leaven shall not be seen with you, and leavened bread shall not be seen with you in all your territory” (Exo 13:7)?

Pesachim 5b:12

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This tanna seeks permission for seeing the leaven of a Gentile, and yet he cites a verse to establish a prohibition. The Gemara answers that the tanna did not cite proof from the phrase: It shall not be found. Due to the fact that it is stated: “Leaven shall not be seen with you in all your territory” (Exo 13:7) and “No leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory” (Deu 16:4) twice, one of them is superfluous and may be appended to: It shall not be found, creating the prohibition: It shall not be found with you. Only leaven belonging to a Jew is prohibited.