Ma nishtanah korban pesach m'kol korbanos

This analysis explores how and why korban pesach differs from all other korbanos as reflected through two disparate philosophies of korbanos in general

Rambam's opinion in the Moreh (3:32) is that the mikdash, the various avodos and korbanos etc are a concession to the kind of astral worship that was in vogue when the Torah was given as people used to offer incense and sacrifice animals to supposed celestial deities, see there his theory of gradual development namely that people cant abruptly turn on a dime, stop doing what they're familiar with, and start doing something foreign to them, rather, they need to be slowly weaned off the negative behavior and incrementally redirected to the desired goal.Ramban (vayikrah 1:9) strongly disagrees with this utilitarian conception, maintaining that there is inherent value in korbanos. He marshals proof from the fact that the Torah consistently refers to them as providing "reiach nichoach" to HaShem, apparently indicating essentiality.

He asks a bunch of other questions on Rambams approach as well, amongst them, that it'd be more of a repudiation of supposed animal deities if we were to consume them rather than sacrificing them and potentially granting them legitimacy as something worthy of being offered to God.

It is therefore surprising to find Ramban seemingly espousing a similar approach to Rambams rejected position when it comes to the korban pesach: Ramban (shemos 12:3) writes the following
: טעם המצוה הזאת, בעבור שמזל טלה בחדש ניסן בכחו הגדול, כי הוא מזל הצומח, לכך צוה לשחוט טלה ולאכול אותו, להודיע שלא בכח המזל יצאנו משם אלא בגזרת עליון. ועל דעת רבותינו שהיו המצרים עובדים אותו, כל שכן שהודיע במצוה הזאת שהשפיל אלהיהם וכוחם בהיותו במעלה העליונה שלו. וכך אמרו: קחו לכם צאן ושחטו אלהיהם של מצרים (שמות רבה ט״ז:ב׳):.

Netziv writes (vayikra 26:31) that the expression of "reiach nichoach" is associated with all korbanos bar one: the korban pesach.

I've seen this utilized to explain away the seeming contradiction in Ramban, as being that "reiach nichoach" is conspicuously absent from korban pesach, that indicates that at least with regard to korban pesach the reasoning is dissimilar from the reasoning given for other korbanos which have got to do with the animal standing in for the person, not killing and consuming the animal per se.

What we have, per Ramban, are constitutionally differing conceptions behind standard korbanos on the one hand, and korban pesach on the other, with the former about zerikas hadam and haktaras eimurin, and the latter about killing and consuming the korban ie utter repudiation of the Egyptian god.

I think this fundamental distinction between korban pesach and all other korbanos well explains many differences that exist between them.

For starters, there is a mishnah in pesachim (bavli 76b) that allows for the pesach to be eaten b'tumah if it was offered in impurity—something which we do not find by any other korban. The rationale given is "שלא בא מתחילתו אלא לאכילה" with Rashi explaining: "כשנצטוה עיקר פסח לאכילה נצטוה דכתיב לפי אכלו וכי שרייה רחמנא למיתי בטומאה מאיש נדחה ואין צבור נדחין אדעתא למיכליה שרייה".

Ditto there on 78b there's another mishnah that says that if theres awareness that the basar became tamei, and it's still prior to zerika, then even though the eimurin are pure, the pesach isn't valid, which isn't the case by other korbanos, with Rashi explaining: אפי׳ לר׳ אליעזר דעיקר פסח לאכילת אדם קאתי.

According to the above that rationale is limited to the korban pesach.

Light is shed as well on pesach being the only korban that has an obligation to eat a shiur k'zayis devolve upon bnei chiyuv as opposed to the other korbanos where the obligation is to ensure that there aren't leftovers that can become nosar, but no mandated achilah per se (see beis halevi 1:2:7 and ohr samayach chometz umatzah 6:1).

There is a halacha unique to pesach which is found in MT (pesulei hamukdashin 15:11) that if it is slaughtered l'sheim chulin then it is totally disqualified as a korban. Ohr Samayach there explains that chulin and pesach are seen as sharing a class as both are primarily for human consumption, in contradistinction to all other korbanos that are about the zerikas hadam which serves to separate them from chulin.

Let's not forget about all the considerable conditions that are unique to how the pesach is to be eaten (eg roasted by subscribers only)

Im sure there are other differences as well that can be accounted for using this fundamental chiluk.

All is well in Rambans world however it seems like Rambam is left out in the cold.

However, upon taking a closer look at the relevant passages in the Moreh it seems that he too is on board with this essential distinction.

In 3:32, which is part of a preamble on ta'amei hamitzvos in general, with avodas hamikdash being touched upon more for illustrative purposes of his theory of gradual development, he makes mention of how animals were sacrificed to celestial images and how that is reoriented towards God.

No mention is made of animal worship per se.

Whereas in 3:46—with Rambam already well into supplying reasons for the mitzvos—Rambam tells us that per Onkelos the Egyptians worshipped Aries and therefore abstained from killing sheep, some Sabeans worshipped demons conceived of as goats, and that in India up till this day cattle aren't killed as they are held in great esteem. Therefore these three are the only authorized sacrifices as they serve to eradicate these false notions.

No where does he say that this is behind the institution of korbanos, that is left as explicated in chapter 32—due to people having sacrificed various items towards heavenly images, not that animals were worshipped per se.

Whereas when it comes to korban pesach Rambam continues and writes (3:46) that not only does the above serve as a reason as to why sheep were selected for korbanos in general but moreover—and crucially—as a rationale for the entire institution of korban pesach. To quote: "This is also the reason why we were commanded to kill a lamb on Passover, and to sprinkle the blood thereof outside on the gates. We had to free ourselves of evil doctrines and to proclaim the opposite, viz., that the very act which was then considered as being the cause of death would be the cause of deliverance from death.". In 3:32 he explicitly references this distinction, stating: "For it is distinctly stated in Scripture, and handed down by tradition, that the first commandments communicated to us did not include any law about burnt-offering and sacrifice. You must not see any difficulty in the Passover which was commanded in Egypt; there was a particular and evident reason for that, as will be explained by me (chap. xlvi.).".

Ultimately, it seems that Rambam too partakes of this fundamental distinction between pesach and all other korbanos, albeit in his own flavor.