שמות, פרק י״ב, פסוק מ״ד

The biblical mandate regarding the Passover sacrifice creates a profound intersection between freedom, the divine covenant, and one of the lowest social strata in the ancient world: the purchased slave. A non-Jewish slave acquired by an Israelite must undergo circumcision to partake in the Passover offering, which serves as the ultimate symbol of liberty and national formation. Rather than leaving the slave as mere property, this requirement elevates his status, bringing him into God's covenant and demonstrating that within a Jewish home, a slave is protected from cruelty and holds a status close to his master [שד״ל, רש״ר הירש]. This applies specifically to a Canaanite slave whose body is purchased with money [רלב״ג, קאסוטו, שטיינזלץ]. While some commentators maintain that the law applies strictly to adult males [קאסוטו], others extend it to female slaves and minors [חזקוני], or use it to exclude a slave owned by a minor master [תורה תמימה].

The act of circumcision serves to integrate the slave into the Jewish faith. A debate exists regarding whether this requires the slave's active consent [אבן עזרא, ביאור יש״ר], or if, unlike a standard convert, a slave is circumcised even against his will [העמק דבר, תורה תמימה]. The requirement is fulfilled through a singular, definitive act. Consequently, if the circumcision was performed even for a fleeting moment, but the skin was later drawn forward to conceal it, the slave is no longer considered uncircumcised and remains permitted to eat from the Passover offering [מלבי״ם, העמק דבר, חזקוני, צפנת פענח].

The primary legal debate centers on who is ultimately permitted or restricted from eating based on this circumcision. The primary approach among commentators dictates that the slave's circumcision is a prerequisite for the master. In other words, an uncircumcised slave actively prevents his master from partaking in the Passover sacrifice; only once the slave is circumcised is the eating permitted for both [הכתב והקבלה, רש״י, רלב״ג]. An opposing view argues that the restriction applies solely to the slave. Under this interpretation, an uncircumcised slave does not hold back his master, but the law simply clarifies that once circumcised, the slave is no longer considered a stranger and may be fed from the offering [רש״י, גור אריה].

Since a broad biblical injunction already prohibits any uncircumcised individual from eating the Passover sacrifice, commentators explore why a specific directive regarding the slave was necessary. Without it, one might mistakenly assume that a slave's circumcision is not strictly obligatory for the master's participation, or that a master who is personally exempt from circumcision due to medical duress could eat while leaving his slave uncircumcised. It also dispels the notion that circumcising a slave solely for the purpose of eating the sacrifice is forbidden, thereby clarifying the precise legal dependency between master and slave [מזרחי, ריב״א, ברטנורא, דברי דוד, משכיל לדוד].

Beyond the legal technicalities lies a deep ideological stance. In eras when the wealthy were influenced by cruel foreign cultures, such as the Romans, masters often refused to circumcise their slaves to avoid treating them as human equals. Against this backdrop, the Jewish sages established a radical standard: a master who refuses to view his slave as a human being worthy of entering God's covenant is himself unfit to celebrate the festival of freedom [שד״ל]. Ultimately, the slave partakes in the sacrifice because he becomes absorbed and integrated into his master's family [צפנת פענח], even if practical distinctions remain, such as the master eating the choice cuts of meat while the slave receives the lesser portions [העמק דבר].