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 ????? ??? ??? in the name of the Tanchuma; indeed, it can be found in ?????? ??? here in ??????. See also Ramban on this Rashi who calls it an ????, a term he reserves for ????? ??”?.

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 ???? ????. Even someone who doesn’t own any land in EY can choose to be ???? ????, and while he is there can bring a ???? ???.

@flyer
I just checked a fourth Chumash (????? 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 ????? on ???? ??”?, 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 ???? ?????? quoted by the ????? ??????.

Interestingly, the ???? ???????? ???? brings this pshat (that Rebbi Yitzchok was Rashi’s father) from ?’ ????? ?????, author of Sefer Chassidim. (This was probably what the manuscript the Taz saw was based on.) Strangely, he says ???? ????? ??’ ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? (!) ?? ???? ??? (!) ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????.

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 ???? ???: as the ???? ???? points out, there is no ???? for saying this. Rather, as the ??”? explains, they are explaining why R’ Yehuda ben Beseira was not ???? ????; on that they answer that he was ???? from ???? ???? because he didn’t own land in EY, and so was automatically ???? from bringing the ???? ??? because he was nowhere near ??????? on ??? ???.

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

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

I don’t see how that Chasam Sofer would apply to ??? ?????, when there was no ???? ???? anyway.

I thought you were trying to answer why the story of creation could not have put after ????? ????. To defeat the ???? of ??? for ??? ?????, it would have been sufficient to put it after ????? ????. The only ???? ??? that would not be covered by putting ???? ?????? after ????? ???? would be ??? ?????.

And anyway, the ?????? would not have had a ???? on ??? ????? for another reason as well: even according to the Minchas Chinuch ???? Tosafos that someone who doesn’t own ???? is also exempt from ???? ???, surely that ???? had not yet been given at the time of ??? ?????, seeing as it was before ??? ????. So how would the ?????? know this ???? 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 ??? ?????? I mean, without the Targum Yonasan they simply stayed in Mitzrayim until the next morning, so they were certainly not ???? ????!

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

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.