The Talmud examines the supplemental offering that was usually brought along with the Paschal lamb, a “hagiga” or holiday offering. This was brought so the people could satisfy their appetite with the hagiga before consuming the Passover offering, so that eating the Passover itself was for the sake of the Divine commandment, not out of hunger (also because it is forbidden to break the bones of the Passover).

One lesson here is when you are trying to achieve something important, do not appear desperate to get it. If you feel somewhat sated, be this in a physical or psychological sense, it can be easier to get what you want to actually fill your needs.

The Gemara notes a bizarre event from over 2000 years ago, in the days of the Temple:

It was taught in a baraita: Yehuda ben Dortai separated himself from the other Rabbis, he and Dortai his son, and went and settled in the far south so that he would not be obligated to bring the Paschal lamb, as it was a great distance from Jerusalem. He did this because he disagreed with the Rabbis with regard to the Festival offering of the fourteenth, which in their view did not override Shabbat. He said: If Elijah will come and say to the Jewish people: Why did you not sacrifice the Festival offering on Shabbat? Then what will they say to him? I am astounded at the two most eminent scholars of our generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, who are great sages and great expositors, and yet they did not tell the Jewish people that even the Festival offering of the fourteenth overrides Shabbat.

The prevailing view was that we do not bring the hagiga with the Paschal lamb if the 14th is on Shabbat. Ben Dortai could have stayed near Jerusalem and then, in those rare instances when the 14th falls of Shabbat, took issue with the other rabbis or not. He also could have obtained a larger animal for his Paschal lamb so he would not personally need more meat. Instead, he dodged the issue by moving far away.

Avoidance can be tempting and is sometimes appropriate, but ultimately does not solve the problem. Getting away from something is not a good way to define you identity.

This week we study Beshalach, Exodus 13:17–17:16, describing the Jews leaving Egypt, then the pursuit by the Egyptian army culminating in the splitting of the Red Sea.  The Jews crossed over the sea bed, then when the Egyptians followed the water returned, drowning them.

Pharaoh has an amazing reaction:

It was reported to Pharaoh that the people had fled; and Pharaoh and his servants had a change of heart toward the people, and they said, What is this that we have done, that we have released Israel from serving us? (14:5)

Yes, the Jews were enslaved for hundreds of brutal years working for Egypt.  But during the period of the 10 plagues, they were not working and were highly esteemed by the Egyptians.  These supernatural plagues were spread over the course of one year (Mishna, Eiruvin ch.2).  During that year, Egypt has been economically devastated, with many lives lost, including every firstborn son.

And yet Pharaoh assumes his army can capture the Jews and put them back to work.  He acts on his feeling that he can bring Egypt back to the good old days, even after witnessing a year a Divine intervention that ended Jewish slavery.

This is not as crazy as it sounds.  Many men have tried the exact same thing.  When a man has enjoyed the beginning of a relationship with a woman, he will keep trying to recreate that period, even after their situation is completely different.  Things may be completely falling apart now, but a man will ignore all the fights, tension, and resentment because his heart is set on going back to an idyllic time when they were first together and their love was strong.

This male fixation on recreating the past is a dangerous thing.  Many men desire to reconnect to old friends or lovers, even though the present situation makes that impossible or ridiculous.  There may be months or years of strife or separation that have completely erased any potential the relationship had.  But still, men want to recapture the good feelings they once had.

Be aware that your time, effort, money, and energy is much better spent developing new possibilities than trying to relive a lost past.  Move on is good advice but it can take a firm dedication to improving yourself and finding opportunities.

It is curious that when trapped between the Egyptian army and the sea, many of the Jews had the same reaction:

Pharaoh drew near, and the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and behold! the Egyptians were advancing after them. They were very frightened, and the children of Israel cried out to the Lord.  They said to Moses, Is it because there are no graves in Egypt that you have taken us to die in the desert? What is this that you have done to us to take us out of Egypt?  Isn’t this the thing [about] which we spoke to you in Egypt, saying, Leave us alone, and we will serve the Egyptians, because we would rather serve the Egyptians than die in the desert.  Moses said to the people, Don’t be afraid! Stand firm and see the Lord’s salvation that He will wreak for you today, for the way you have seen the Egyptians is [only] today, [but] you shall no longer continue to see them for eternity.  The Lord will fight for you, but you shall remain silent. (14:10-14)

Some of the Jews, even after being effectively free for a year, seeing miraculous plagues, and finally being out of Egypt, are ready to go right back into slavery.  It was hard but it was a familiar situation they were used to.  This is another dangerous facet of humans: we can get used to anything.  This can be advantage but holds tremendous danger.

The Talmud brings a shocking exchange between our sages about 2000 years ago over if preparations for the Passover offering besides the slaughter itself override the Sabbath:

Rabbi Eliezer said to him about this: Akiva, you have lightheartedly responded to me with a faulty a fortiori inference about slaughter. His death will be with slaughter; (meaning as punishment for this disrespect you will be slaughtered by other people).
Rabbi Akiva said to him: My teacher, do not deny my contention, for this is the tradition I received from you: Sprinkling is forbidden by rabbinic decree and does not override Shabbat.

The Gemara debates what the issue was and concludes that Rabbi Eliezer forgot his own teaching and Rabbi Akiva came to remind him of his teaching by drawing an inference from sprinkling that would cause Rabbi Eliezer to remember what he himself had taught.  The Gemara asks: If so, then let Rabbi Akiva say explicitly that this is what Rabbi Eliezer himself had taught. The Gemara answers: He thought that it would not be proper to tell his teacher directly that he had forgotten his teaching.

Rabbi Eliezer’s implied curse to his student is baffling, the Talmud does not explain the context, perhaps he was motivated to prevent other people present from disrespecting the sages generally.  It is amazing that Rabbi Akiva reminded his teacher of a law. The Mishnah in Pirke Avot (Wisdom of the Fathers) 2:10 brings the words of Rabban Yochanan the son of Zakkai, the teacher of Rabbi Eliezer, testifying that he is like a cemented cistern that never loses a drop.  It is bizarre that the Gemara here implies Rabbi Eliezer seems to have forgotten a law.  Perhaps there is something deeper going on…

When you have learned wisdom from another man, do not contradict him in public.  It may be that he is in fact wrong about something, but by undermining your own teacher, you prevent others from learning and in addition undermine whatever correct ideas he taught you from influencing you for the better.  If you call your own master into question, other men will question your wisdom since it flowed from him.

It is a common occurrence in modern debate that people will attack the man when they cannot refute his ideas.  Be aware that others may try to go after you personally when they disagree with an idea.  Be prepared to keep the focus on the topic, the ideas not the personalities.  This is a serious challenge in this age.

There is plenty of invaluable wisdom in today’s learning, including discussions of the future resurrection of the deceased.

Rava raised a contradiction in a verse. It is written: “I put to death and I make live” (Deuteronomy 32:39) and it is written: “I wound and I heal.”  Now since He gives life to the dead, all the more so is it not obvious that He can heal those still alive?  Rather, the second clause clarifies the first one: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Those same people whom I put to death I will bring to life, just as those whom I wounded I heal.

This is a deep concept.  Whatever “wound” or adversity you face in life is just as much from God as the cure or solution.  Difficulty is disguised opportunity.  Our Rabbi in Yeshivah told us that once a young man came to learn after he had experienced a miracle: he was driving on a narrow, winding mountain road, and a bus came from the opposite direction, and he was forced off the road.  He fell off the cliff, on the way down he asked God to save him.  The car was totaled but he was fine, not even a scratch.  A miracle!
Our rabbi told him: “Yes, a miracle, but who do you think threw you off the cliff?”

Whatever challenges or (God forbid) illnesses in your life are actually for your benefit, to get you to grow, change, adapt, and overcome.  It is strange to realize that the same force (God or fate if you life) causing your problem also desires (or incentivizes) your success.  See our essay “The revealed world”.

The Talmud also mentions the value to enjoying certain holidays with food and drink, not just prayer and learning to satisfy both your physical and spiritual appetites.

Rav Yosef, on the day of Shavuot, would say: Prepare me a third-born calf (the best meat).  He said: If not for this day on which the Torah was given that caused the Jewish people to have Torah, how many Yosefs would there be in the street?

Yosef is Joseph, or Joe.  This is the origin of the phrase “Joe Shmoe” and “average Joe in the street”.  Rabbi Yossi realized that his distinction from other men was due to his involvement in learning and teaching wisdom.  If he wasn’t involved in Torah, he would not have such value and self esteem.  His life work separated him from the average Joe in the street.

We should realize what makes us great and appreciate it.  Celebrate the hard work you have put in and know where your expertise lies.

Today the Talmud addresses a fascinating law.  Offerings may not be eaten by people who are ritually impure,  but Passover has an exception.  When the majority of the Jewish people are impure from a corpse they may still offer and eat the Paschal lamb.  Only individuals, less than the majority, are deferred to the second Passover a month later (Numbers 9:10).  This is even though corpse impurity is the strongest type.

The deeper message here is that even if your society has become extremely corrupted, if most people go along with it, then any level of impurity will appear normal.  One of the dangers of modern interconnected mainstream society is the pervasive influence of the media on us.  We are given the message that the values of the media oligarchs and famous figures represent the actual majority and must be accepted as sacrosanct by all.  In reality, the small group of people running the media do not represent the entire culture.

When men are told over an over from infancy that certain concepts are real, normal, and expected, it becomes very hard to question the norms pushed on us.  One of the key benefits of the internet is to allow men to connect with people who share their values, allowing us to see that there are options outside the mainstream narrative.

Amazing story from 2100 years ago in todays learning:

The Sages taught regarding when the eve of Passover that occurs on Shabbat: This law was forgotten by the sons of Beteira, the leaders of their generation.  They said: Is there any person who knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not?
Someone said to them: There is a certain man in Jerusalem who came up from Babylonia, and Hillel the Babylonian is his name.  He served the two most eminent scholars of the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, so he certainly knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not.  The sons of Beteira sent messengers and called for him. They said to him: Do you know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not?
He said to them: Have we but one sacrifice during the year that overrides Shabbat? Do we not have many more than two hundred sacrifices during the year that override Shabbat? (referring to the two daily offerings and two Sabbath offerings, that are brought 52 times a year)… Just as the expression “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the daily offerings, indicates that it overrides Shabbat, so too “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, indicates that it overrides Shabbat.

They (the sons of Beteira) immediately seated him at the head and appointed him Nasi over them, and he expounded the laws of Passover that entire day. In the course of his teaching, he began rebuking them. He said to them: What caused this to happen to you, that I should come up from Babylonia and become Nasi over you? It was the laziness in you that you did not serve the two most eminent scholars of the generation living Israel, Shemaya and Avtalyon.

Hillel came from Babel penniless, with nothing except his dedication to learn.  He points out that he did not only learn with Shemaya and Avtalion (as the sons of Betera had learned also), but humbly served them and spent the extra time to see what they did in practice.  That intense apprenticeship gave him the edge.

The sons of Betera display incredible humility giving over their leadership to the new man on the scene.  This demonstrates the incredible emphasis that conventional Judaism places on learning wisdom and being able to render legal decisions that the public needs.  After Hillel rebukes the former leaders, the Gemara notes:

They said to Hillel: Our teacher, if one forgot and did not bring a knife on the eve of Shabbat to slaughter his Paschal lamb, what is the law?  He said to them: I once heard this law from my teachers but I have forgotten it. But leave it to the Jewish people; if they are not prophets, they are the sons of prophets…

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who acts haughtily, if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him; and if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him. The Gemara explains: if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him is learned from Hillel, for the Master said: Hillel began to rebuke them with words. Because he acted haughtily, he ended up saying to them: I once heard this law but I have forgotten

The message is don’t think too highly of yourself, you also have vulnerabilities.  Thinking you are already on top leads to failure to continue to improve yourself.

Our sages also link arrogance with anger.  Anger is the response to feeling that things are not going your way.  Well, who says things should always go your way?   Arrogance.   A wise man observes potential partners under various situations, to see how they respond to frustration and disappointment.  Anger is an outward manifestation of arrogance.

The Talmud, continuing yesterday’s discussion, notes that while it was required to have three groups offer the Paschal lamb one after another, it was considered somewhat lazy for a man to wait for the last group.  On this theme:

As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The world cannot function without a perfume merchant or without a tanner. While both of these are necessary, fortunate is he whose profession is that of a perfume merchant, and woe to him whose profession is that of a tanner.  Likewise, the world cannot exist without males or without females; yet fortunate is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females.

You would be wrong to assume that our sages valued boys over girls, they explicitly state both are necessary.  However, our sages are well aware that boys and girls are not the same and should not be treated in the same way by their father.

The idea here is that a father is always worried about his daughters and is dramatically more protective over them.  A father knows his sons will figure it out and succeed in their own way.  But he wants to help his daughters find a good man, a good life, and be safe and secure.  In a father’s mind, his girls remain part of his family, his tribe, even though the sons leave home to start their own little tribes.

This constant worry and desire for his daughters to have the best life is the woe of a father of daughters.  However, this is also an opportunity to be himself a model to the girls of what kind of man they should seek as a mate.

Hebrew is a gendered language, and the masculine plural can include both masculine and feminine.  Therefore the words “banim zecharim” used for “male children” translates literally as “male sons” and well as male children.

Could sons be female?

Yes, in a sense.  If boys are raised without a strong masculine role model, they will assume the behavior they see modelled by women to be the normal and acceptable way for them to behave, even though it is contrary to their biology.  An example of a son taking on female traits of empathy and emotionalism was Reuven.

In modern secular society most boys are taught by women, and many are raised by single mothers.   We have discussed the problems this creates, and the benefits of same sex education, which is common among religious circles.

The Chatam Sofer, a major Rabbi in 19th century Hungary, comments that this Gemara can mean that a man is fortunate when all of his children have the masculine aspect of giving to and influencing others. In Jewish wisdom, a man is expected to lead others at times. If his sons always follow instead of lead, this is a lack of development.

The Talmud brings an amazing Mishnah describing how the ancient Jews offered the Paschal lamb:

The Paschal lamb was slaughtered in three groups, meaning those bringing the offering were divided into three separate sets, as it is stated: “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon” (Exodus 12:6). The verse is interpreted as referring to three groups: Assembly, congregation, and Israel. The procedure for sacrificing the offering was as follows: The first group of people sacrificing the offering entered, and when the Temple courtyard became filled with them they closed the doors of the Temple courtyard…
An Israelite would slaughter the sacrifice, and a priest would receive the blood and immediately hand it to another priest standing next to him, and the other priest would pass it to another. Each priest would receive a full bowl of blood from the priest next to him and return to him an empty bowl being passed in the opposite direction, the contents of which had already been sprinkled on the altar. The priest who was closest to the altar would sprinkle a single sprinkling of blood against the base of the altar…

The ritual was done in shifts, as although the Temple complex was quite large, there were sometimes hundreds of thousands of Jews making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Passover.  As there were thousands of offerings and each needed blood from the animal sprinkled on the altar, the priests formed a chain and developed an efficient method of passing the blood and the empty bowls back and forth.

On a normal day with other offerings, one priest would receive the blood and walk it to the altar, then apply the blood himself.  This was simply impossible for the Passover offerings due to the sheer numbers involved.

The lesson for us is that often a man can do his own thing himself from start to finish.  However, sometimes that approach simply will not work, and a man has to become part of something greater to get the job done.  It may have been tedious to stand in one place passing bowls all day, but the holy work needed to be done efficiently and quickly.  A man must expect that he will sometimes need to sublimate his own pride into a group to accomplish a larger task.

Observing the priests in the Temple provided men a reminder that we must be ready to assume different roles as required to get the job done.

The Talmud continues on the topic of proper intentions during the Passover sacrifice.  If a man slaughters his Paschal lamb while speaking out his intent that people who cannot eat from it will eat it, this renders the sacrifice invalid.  Our sages note that apparently Rabbi Meir holds that we do not require one’s mouth and heart be the same, what is legally significant is only his verbal expression.  However, the Gemara brings a statement attributed to Rabbi Meir that tithes and vows are not effective if the man had a different intention compared to the words he said – meaning that the words alone are not legally binding if his heart was on something else.

Obviously words from the heart, that are consistent with your actual intentions, are significant and legally binding.  But this debate clues us in that it is possible for people to say one thing but intend for something quite different.  Don’t expect everyone to always say exactly what they mean.

You may find this mode of communication and can be quite common among women.  To figure out what a woman really wants to convey you often need to consider the entire context, her body language, tonality, and background.  Is she around her friends?  Other men?  How is she interacting with them?

At times, a woman may be suggesting something important to you but in a way that she will be able to deny it.  She also wants to know if you are the kind of man who gets her message despite it being subtle.  Learn to pick up on the cues that reveal unspoken intent.

Today’s Talmud also includes mention of Akavya ben Mahalalel, see Rashi: במסכת עדיות תנן ארבעה דברים העיד עקביא בן מהללאל כו’ וקתני התם הוא היה אומר אין משקין לא את הגיורת ולא את המשוחררת אמרו לו מעשה בכרכמית שפחה שהיתה בירושלים והשקוה שמעיה ואבטליון אמר להם דוגמא השקוה דומין לה היו אותן שהשקוה ונידוהו אמר רבי יהודה חס ושלום שעקביא נתנדה שאין עזרה ננעלת כו’ כשהיתה ננעלת על כל אדם בערבי פסחים שהקהל גדול ורב אין בהם אחד בחכמה וביראת חטא כעקביא:

לפע”ד י”ל שכוונת הלשון דוגמא לא רק שדומין לה אלה שפסק שלהם שהאשה עצמה תהיה דוגמא לנשים אחרות אע”פ שלא היתה סוטה מן הדין

This week we study Exodus 10:1–13:16, the reading called “Bo” meaning come.  Moses is told to come to Pharaoh and warn him again that more plagues are coming if he refuses to let the Jews go to worship God:  “Come to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, in order that I may place these signs of Mine in his midst, and in order that you tell into the ears of your son and your son’s son how I made a mockery of the Egyptians, and you will tell of My signs that I placed in them, and you will know that I am the Lord.”

The plagues were not simply a punishment or a stick to get the Jews out of slavery, they were to be a reminder for the future.  The reading then details how Pharaoh continues to refuse, and locusts, darkness, and death of the firstborn are visited upon ancient Egypt.  Last year we discussed how Pharaoh was stuck in his mindset of resisting the plagues, even when they were clearly Divine miracles.  We noted that even most of the ancient Jews were stuck in the mindset of being assimilated into Egyptian society and were not worthy of leaving their past behind.

The Jews are instructed to begin a lunar calendar, perform circumcision, and make a special animal offering: the Paschal (Passover) lamb.  That night the Egyptian firstborn perish while the Jews are protected.  The death of the firstborn changes Pharaoh’s mind – for now – and he allows the Jews to leave.

The Bible gives an interesting description of the Jews obtaining the lambs in Egypt:

Speak to the entire community of Israel, saying, “On the tenth of this month, let each one take a lamb for each parental home, a lamb for each household. (12:3)… And you shall keep it for inspection until the fourteenth day of this month, and the entire congregation of the community of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon. (12:6)…You shall not eat it rare or boiled in water, except roasted over the fire its head with its legs and with its innards. (12:9)…I will pass through the land of Egypt on this night, and I will smite every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast, and upon all the gods of Egypt will I wreak judgments I, the Lord. (12:12)

Why all these details?  Remember, the Bible does not have any extra words.

Realize that the Egyptians of that era worshiped lambs and treated them with respect, similar to the “holy cow” of India.  The Egyptians could not sit down to a meal with foreigners who ate meat (see Genesis 43:32).  Moses told Pharaoh during an earlier negotiation (Ex 8:22) “If we would slaughter the abominations of Egypt in front of their eyes would they not stone us?”  The abominations refers to the lambs, which are an abomination to worship in place of God.

The Egyptians would not dream of eating a lamb, which was an embodiment of their deity.  It is possible that the Egyptians of that generation were vegetarians, and thought that eating meat was a barbaric vestige of an uncivilized pre-agricultural past.  Remember that Egypt was the greatest power of that time, and enjoyed a reliable agricultural economy due to the Nile.  Having to rely on shepherding animals to eat was seen as backwards and abhorrent to these modern Egyptians (see Genesis 46:33-34).

We discussed the Jewish attitude towards consuming meat in Aharei Mot – Kedoshim: meat and holiness:

We cannot cause needless suffering to anyone else, even to animals.  We are only allowed to eat meat because God told us we can in the Bible.  Why were humans allowed to kill animals and eat meat?  Human beings have a spiritual potential that animals do not have.  Humans can raise their spiritual level, this is what separate us from animals…Men grow, self actualize, and attain new levels of understanding.

Our ancient sages in the Talmud, Pesachim 49b, say an unlearned man (“am haaretz” or ignoramus ) should not be allowed eat meat.  This Gemara is talking on a logical and philosophical level, on a practical level we allow any man to eat meat.  The unlearned man of course speaks, he is not an animal.  But he is not using his intellectual powers to learn, grow, and refine himself.  He is not engaged in dynamic spiritual improvement.  He does not even see a need to change.  He is ignorant of his ignorance, so he doesn’t bother to learn about what he doesn’t know.  So he is not that different from an animal, animals have their instincts, they get by without learning and developing intellectual powers.  Therefore, our sages say by the measure of strict justice he should not eat meat, since he is not elevating the meat to a higher level.  He is just slaughtering an animal to enjoy the taste or feed his body.  And why is his body any better than the animal’s?

The Jews were told to keep the lamb for days, giving the Egyptians ample time to realize they were keeping a “god” tied up in their homes.  The Jews needed to slaughter it in the afternoon, when people will see.  Then to roast it, giving off an obvious aroma, with the head intact, so it is unmistakable as a lamb.  This is the part of the judgment on “the gods of Egypt”.

Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Draw forth and buy for yourselves sheep for your families and slaughter the Passover sacrifice (12:21).  Moses himself adds that the Jews could “draw forth” as in drag the bleating lambs to their homes in plain sight of the Egyptians.  This is literally adding insult to spiritual injury of seeing their gods led to slaughter.

The message here is that there are times when it is appropriate to proudly and directly confront your opposition.  If what you are doing it right, don’t try to hide and minimize it.  You may run the risk of antagonizing others, and sometimes that is worth it to live the life you want to lead (see Shuchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 1).  While humility is invaluable, there is sometimes a value in being assertive and open to shock those think you would not dare to oppose them.

Keep in mind the same Egyptians who were shocked by eating a lamb had enslaved the ancient Jews, working them to death, and thrown their babies into the Nile.  Most of the Egyptians, with the exception of Pharaoh’s daughter, encouraged infanticide to the point that they had even allowed their own male infants to be thrown into the river in a bid to prevent Moses from emerging.  The same people who condoned slavery, brutality, and infanticide were outraged by the thought of slaughtered and eating innocent animals.

The prophet Hoshea (13:2) refers to Egypt “They slaughter men, calves they kiss”.  It appears they kept the calves to plow their crops and worshiped them.  The historian Herodotus, writing about 2500 years ago, long after the Jews had left, states: “And all the Egyptians without distinction reverence cows far more than any other kind of cattle; for which reason neither man nor woman of Egyptian race would kiss a man who is a Hellene on the mouth” (Histories 2:41).

We see a similar attitude in modern times.  Some people wont give the time of day, let alone a dollar, to their fellow man.  But they will put in hours and thousands of dollars caring for a pet.  We can understand, after all, their pet is part of their identity, they get love and devotion from their animal.  However, this twisted attitude extends to larger issues.  Greenpeace (the self righteous protectors of whales) and other environmental groups opposed planting Golden Rice, which contains beta carotene (vitamin A) to prevent human children from death and blindness.  They argue that humanity should be willing to sacrifice millions of children in developing nations to death or blindness to protect the environment from an unproven an unspecific harm of changing nature.

This reminds us of ancient Egypt, willing to throw children in the river but abhorred by slaughtering and eating animals.  Disfigured priorities are nothing new.

Circumcision and identity

Towards the end of the reading the Bible commands the Jews to mark that night as Passover for future generations:  It is a night of anticipation for the Lord, to take them out of the land of Egypt; this night is the Lord’s, guarding all the children of Israel throughout their generations. (12:42)

The Bible enjoins that an uncircumcised man may not eat the Paschal lamb, and that once a convert becomes a Jew, through circumcision, he brings a Passover offering.

And should a proselyte reside with you, he shall make a Passover sacrifice to the Lord. All his males shall be circumcised, and then he may approach to make it, and he will be like the native of the land, but no uncircumcised male may partake of it.  There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger (convert) who resides in your midst. (12:48-49)

This is the first source in the Bible for the concept of equality under the law.  Jews born as Jews were not judged under a separate standard than converts.  The idea of equality under the law was taken from Jewish scriptures by the founding fathers of the United States of America.  Since we grew up with the assumption that every person has equal privileges and protections, it would shock us to realize that in Europe just a couple hundred years ago it was common for nobles and aristocrats to be judged by totally different standards than commoners.

But what does circumcision have to do with the Passover offering?

Under Jewish law these are the only positive commandments that have the special punishment of caret meaning spiritual excision.  That is because these commands are central to Jewish identity (Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 2).  The circumcision or Brit (covenant) is the first mitzvah a baby boy obtains, when he only 8 days old.  The Passover offering is to recognize the gravity of the acts God performed for us in Egypt, where we were forged into a nation by centuries of slavery and then redeemed miraculously.  God took one nation out of another nation, like a woman giving birth to a new human being.  Passover is the recognition that we owe our identity to God.  Therefore, these two positive commands are extra special and carry a special punishment for failure to perform them.

Now, there are also many negative commandments (do not do X) that also carry caret.  However, we do not define your identity by what you do not do.  Rather you are what you do, how you act, what yo accomplish.

We touched on this concept when discussing MGTOW and the 40 years dead time in the desert:

However, a man tempted to go his own way should have a plan of where he is “going”.  If is he simply avoiding relationships, he won’t actually get anywhere in life.  Instead he needs to have a mission, things he wants to accomplish, instead of people he fears and avoids.  You are what you do, not what you avoid.

…The question to ask is not what are you avoiding, but what are you actively doing instead?

If you are avoiding some dangers great; you should take care of yourself.  But what are you going out and actually doing?  If your mental focus is on what to avoid you are wasting your ability.  Instead focus on what you can accomplish.

A man’s identity should be judged not by what he avoids, but by what he actually does with himself.  This is the message of the special commandments of circumcision and Passover.  A modern man should carefully consider what he wants to do and where he wants to go in life, and take action to make it happen for him.