Starting the Torah from Hachodash Hazeh

Now we can look forward to having this bumped every year at Parshas Bereishis.

I couldn’t find anywhere in the Sifsei Chachomim that this Rebbi Yitzchok is Rashi’s father. But even if he (or someone else) does say it, with the greatest of respect it isn’t so. In actual fact, this statement of Rebbi Yitzchok appears in the Yalkut Shimoni on the possuk החודש הזה לכם in the name of the Tanchuma; indeed, it can be found in תנחומא ישן here in בראשית. See also Ramban on this Rashi who calls it an אגדה, a term he reserves for מאמרי חז”ל.

It’s the first sifsei chachamim of the Torah.

Reb Eliezer, one doesn’t need to own land in EY in order to bring the Korban Pesach. One only needs to own land in Eretz Yisroel in order to be obligated in עליה לרגל. Even someone who doesn’t own any land in EY can choose to be עולה לרגל, and while he is there can bring a קרבן פסח.

@flyer
I just checked a fourth Chumash (המאור edition), and this one does have the piece you are referring to. (Seems like they added it in.) It is a quote from the Divrei Dovid, the Taz’s פירוש on חומש רש”י, who in turn is quoting something he saw as a boy in an old manuscript. And immediately afterwards, in square brackets, the copyist makes the same point I made: that this is definitely a מדרש תנחומא quoted by the ילקוט שמעוני.

Interestingly, the אוצר הראשונים חומש brings this pshat (that Rebbi Yitzchok was Rashi’s father) from ר’ יהודה החסיד, author of Sefer Chassidim. (This was probably what the manuscript the Taz saw was based on.) Strangely, he says וזאת מימרא דר’ יצחק כל בעלי מדרשים בדקו אחריה ולא מצאו מקומה (!) אך קבלה היא (!) שרבינו שלמה אמרה בשם אביו.

Reb Eliezer, Tosafos doesn’t mean that at all. Tosafos is not saying that someone who doesn’t own land in EY is exempt from bringing the קרבן פסח: as the משנה למלך points out, there is no מקור for saying this. Rather, as the צל”ח explains, they are explaining why R’ Yehuda ben Beseira was not עולה לרגל; on that they answer that he was פטור from עליה לרגל because he didn’t own land in EY, and so was automatically פטור from bringing the קרבן פסח because he was nowhere near ירושלים on ערב פסח.

But even if you would be right that not owning land in EY is an exemption from the מצוה of קרבן פסח, the כנענים would still not have a טענה; as even then we could bring the קרבן פסח without being מחויב, just like someone who is פטור from עליה לרגל can still choose to come.

Oh, and by the way, the דיבור המתחיל of Tosafos is not Me’eloho, but rather Mei’alyoh (from the tail).

I don’t see how that Chasam Sofer would apply to פסח מצרים, when there was no עליה לרגל anyway.

I thought you were trying to answer why the story of creation could not have put after והגדת לבנך. To defeat the טענה of גזל for פסח דורות, it would have been sufficient to put it after והגדת לבנך. The only קרבן פסח that would not be covered by putting מעשה בראשית after והגדת לבנך would be פסח מצרים.

And anyway, the כנענים would not have had a טענה on פסח מצרים for another reason as well: even according to the Minchas Chinuch בדעת Tosafos that someone who doesn’t own קרקע is also exempt from קרבן פסח, surely that הלכה had not yet been given at the time of פסח מצרים, seeing as it was before מתן תורה. So how would the כנענים know this הלכה if it had not yet been given?

Why do you need to bring the Targum Yonasan to prove that the Jews were not oleh l’regel at פסח מצרים? I mean, without the Targum Yonasan they simply stayed in Mitzrayim until the next morning, so they were certainly not עולה לרגל!

You then say that since בני ישראל were not עולה לרגל at פסח מצרים, no קרקע was required. I suppose you mean that even according to the Minchas Chinuch בדעת Tosafos that a regular קרבן פסח requires קרקע for it to be an obligation, פסח מצרים is somehow different, and does not need the ownership of קרקע for it to be a חיוב. So we agree that the כנענים could not have had a טענה regarding פסח מצרים, since there is no need to have קרקע for it to be a חיוב; and, if מעשה בראשית had been written after והגדת לבנך, they could not have had a טענה regarding any other פסח either! Which brings us back to your original קשיא (which is really the מעשי ה’s explanation of Rebbi Yitzchok’s קשיא): why could מעשה בראשית not have been written after והגדת לבנך?

So what have you answered exactly?

Sechel.

Or we can just look into the Ramban and read his own words, he goes on to explain how Rashi is right even with his ‘mehalech’ and why R Yitzchaks pshat is still valid.