did Bn"Y recite birchas haTorah on mattan Torah

1) Every once in awhile there is a dump of new seforim onto hebrewbooks.org and when I see that I start browsing here and there.  In a sefer they just put up called Noam Amarim, the Sassover Rebbe notes that it says by mattan Torah that the people stood  וַיִּֽתְיַצְּב֖וּ בְּתַחְתִּ֥ית הָהָֽר, at the bottom of the mountain.  A person should want to climb and grow in ruchniyus, but sometimes a person falls or finds himself stuck at rock bottom.  Our parsha teaches that Torah is addressed even to that person, to those stuck on the bottom of the mountain.  

The Rebbe also says he was asked an interesting question that he had never thought of before.  If you look in P' Masei, you will see that Sinai is the 13th stop that Bn"Y came to after leaving Egypt.  Why was it on the 13th stop in particular that Torah was given?  I usually don't like these sorts of questions.  If it had been the 12th or 11th of any other number stop, you could ask the same thing.  The Rebbe did like it, and connects it to the 13 midos.

2) On to a more halachic topic.  Did Klal Yisrael says a birchas haTorah before kabbalas haTorah or not?  And if they did, what did they say?

Before answering that question, first point that needs clarification is why a birchas haTorah might be required.  It says in SA 47:4 המהרהר בדברי תורה א"צ לברך.  True, GR"A disagrees, but the question here is not only according to shitas haGR"A.  The gemara (Br 20b) writes that בעל קרי מהרהר בלבו to fulfill the mitzvah of shema.  The gemara comments: מר רבינא זאת אומרת הרהור כדבור דמי because if hirhur was not equivalent to dibur, how could the baal keri be yotzei?  The gemara says perhaps this is no proof.  If הרהור כדבור דמי, why bother with hirhur -- why not just say the words?  The gemara answers כדאשכחן בסיני.  Explains Rashi: שהפרישן מאשה דכתיב אל תגשו אל אשה (שמות יט) ועל פרישה זו סמך עזרא לתקן טבילה לבעלי קריין קודם שיעסקו בתורה.  Saying the words requires a higher level of tahara, as we see from mattan Torah, that hirhur does not.

What words were said by Bn"Y at Sinai?  Tos on the spot answers that when Bn"Y heard mattan Torah, shome'a k'oneh, it was as if they said the words.  We see an interesting chiddush from Tos that the din of shome'a k'oneh is not just a means to be yotzei a bracha, but it counts as if you actually articulated the words.  

Did that kiyum of talmud Torah which Bn"Y fulfilled at mattan Torah via shome'a k'oneh require a birchas ha'Torah?  This question was posed to R' Shteinman, and what bothered R' Shteinman's interlocutor is the text of the bracha.  How can you say אשׁר בּחר בּנו...ונתן לנו את תורתו when the event hasn't happened yet?   

The very same question might be asked regarding the Avos.  Assuming the Avos kept all the mitzvos, which would include birchas haTorah especially according to the shitos that hold it is d'orasya, how did the words make any sense?  Did they have a different nusach ha'bracha?

I would add one detail to strengthen the makshan's question here.  As we've discussed before, the Tur writes that when one recites the bracha of  אשׁר בּחר בּנו...ונתן לנו את תורתו one should have kavanah for the mitzvah of remembering maamad Har Sinai, which Ramban counts as a separate miztvah.  Bach explains that the Tur was bothered by the fact that we have multiple brachos for birchas haTorah.  Why isn't one bracha enough?  It must be that one of the brachos is not on the act of learning, but rather on remembering maamad Har Sinai.  How does it make sense to say such a bracha before maamad Har Sinai had occurred?

R' Shteinman held that perhaps they only recited the first bracha of לעסוק בּדברי תורה since there was no other option. 

I think there is another approach one can take.  The source for the din of birchas haTorah is a pasuk in Haazinu:  אמר רב יהודה, מניין לברכת התורה לפניה מן התורה, שנאמר כי שם ה׳ אקרא הבו גודל לאלקינו.  This appears after the final mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah.  Netziv comments in Devarim 31:32 that it's no wonder that this mitzvah of birchas haTorah appears only after the 40th year in the midbar at the end of Devarim.  Until the entire Torah was put into writing, no birchas haTorah could be recited:

 עיקר הלימוד כתוב להלן (פסוק ל׳) ״וידבר משה באזני כל קהל ישראל את דברי השירה הזאת עד תומם״, וזה היה אחר שנגמרה כתיבת הספר תורה עד תומם (פסוק כ״ד), ואז היה אפשר להקהיל את העם ולומר השירה בברכה, כמו שאמר (להלן לב,ג) ״כי שם ה׳ אקרא״, אבל בספר תורה חסר אי אפשר לברך, וא״כ לא היה יכול משה מיד להקהיל קודם שהודיעו הקב״ה כל פרשת ״וזאת הברכה״ וגמר כתיבת ס״ת עד ״לעיני כל ישראל״

This fits perfectly with R' Chaim Brisker's chiddush that birchas haTorah is on the cheftza shel Torah -- the text -- rather than the chovas ha'gavra of the mitzvah of talmud Torah.  This is why even according to the SA, who paskens that women cannot recite brachos on mitzvos they were not commanded to do like sukkah or shofar, holds that they may recite birchas haTorah.  Even if women lack a chovas ha'gavra to learn, it is the text itself which requires having a bracha recited over it.  Pre-completion of the Torah there was simply no cheftza upon which to recite a birchas haTorah. 

Therefore, at mattan Torah, given that there was no text of Torah in a completed form that yet existed, a birchas haTorah may not have been applicable.

something harder than splitting the sea; attention at all costs; Moshe re-learns a valuable lesson

1) The parsha opens by telling us that Hashem could not lead the people through the land of the Plishtim  פֶּֽן⁠־יִנָּחֵ֥ם הָעָ֛ם בִּרְאֹתָ֥ם מִלְחָמָ֖ה וְשָׁ֥בוּ מִצְרָֽיְמָה, because they were not ready for war and might want to turn back to Egypt in fear.  Instead, they went by way of Yam Suf, which necessitated splitting the sea.  

Hashem always tries to minimize the amount of miracle required.  The mashgiach R' Chatzel Levenstein asked: couldn't Hashem have just stiffened the people's resolve so that they would not fear the Plishtim and in this way they could take the shorter path?  Wouldn't that have been easier than doing kri'as Yam Suf? 

It must be, answered R' Chatzkel, that changing people's attitudes is in fact even harder than splitting the sea.

2) "There is no such thing as bad publicity," goes the saying.  Some people love attention, no matter if it's for good or bad, no matter what the cost of that attention might be.  I think that is the simplest pshat in this Midrash:

 וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה – כְּשֶׁשָּׁלַח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם מִי צָוַח וַוי, פַּרְעֹה. מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה בְּנוֹ הוֹלֵךְ לִמְדִינָה אַחַת, הָלַךְ וְשָׁרָה אֵצֶל עָשִׁיר אֶחָד וְקִבֵּל הֶעָשִׁיר בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ בְּעַיִן טוֹבָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁמַע הַמֶּלֶךְ מִי קִבֵּל בְּנוֹ וּבְאֵיזֶה מְדִינָה הוּא, הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ אִגֶּרֶת אֵצֶל אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ וְאָמַר לוֹ שַׁלַּח אֶת בְּנִי פַּעַם אַחַת וּב׳ וְג׳ הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ בְּכָל זְמַן וּבְכָל שָׁעָה וְשָׁעָה, עַד שֶׁהָלַךְ וְהוֹצִיא לִבְנוֹ בְּעַצְמוֹ, הִתְחִיל אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ צוֹעֵק עַל שֶׁיָּצָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ שְׁכֵנָיו לָמָּה אַתָּה צוֹעֵק, אָמַר לָהֶם כָּבוֹד הָיָה לִי כְּשֶׁהָיָה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ אֶצְלִי שֶׁהָיָה הַמֶּלֶךְ כּוֹתֵב אִגֶּרֶת לִי, וְהָיָה זָקוּק לִי וְהָיִיתִי סָפוּן בְּפָנָיו, עַכְשָׁו שֶׁנִּמְשַׁךְ בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ מֵאֶצְלִי אֵינוֹ נִזְקָק לִי בְּדָבָר, לְכָךְ אֲנִי צוֹעֵק. כָּךְ אָמַר פַּרְעֹה, כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶצְלִי הָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא זָקוּק לִי וְהָיִיתִי סָפוּן בְּפָנָיו וְהָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ לִי אִגֶּרֶת בְּכָל שָׁעָה וְאוֹמֵר: כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ אֱלֹהֵי הָעִבְרִים שַׁלַּח עַמִּי (שמות ט׳:א׳), וְהָיָה פַּרְעֹה שׁוֹמֵעַ מִפִּי משֶׁה שַׁלַּח אֶת בְּנִי וְלֹא הָיָה מְבַקֵּשׁ לְשַׁלְּחָם, כְּשֶׁיָּרַד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמִצְרַיִם וְהוֹצִיא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וָאֵרֵד לְהַצִּילוֹ מִיַּד מִצְרַיִם (שמות ג׳:ח׳), הִתְחִיל פַּרְעֹה צוֹעֵק וַוי שֶׁשִּׁלַּחְתִּי אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה.

Pharoah regretted sending Bn"Y away because he missed getting that "אִגֶּרֶת" from Hashem on a regular basis in his mail.  What was that אִגֶּרֶת?  "Dear Pharoah, Release my people or you will get yet another makkah.  Sincerely yours, G-d."  And then the makkah would come.  You would think a person would get tired of getting letters like that, of suffering one makkah after the next.  Not Pharaoh.  Better to have G-d's attention, to get his letters, even at the cost of makkos, than to be ignored.  Such is the craving for attention.

We find something similar at the end of VaYechi, when the brothers return to Egypt after burying Yaakov, and we read (50:15)

 וַיִּרְא֤וּ אֲחֵֽי⁠־יוֹסֵף֙ כִּי⁠־מֵ֣ת אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ ל֥וּ יִשְׂטְמֵ֖נוּ יוֹסֵ֑ף וְהָשֵׁ֤ב יָשִׁיב֙ לָ֔נוּ אֵ֚ת כׇּל⁠־הָ֣רָעָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר גָּמַ֖לְנוּ אֹתֽוֹ׃

Rashi explains מהו ויראו? הכירו במיתתו אצל יוסף, שהיו רגילין לסעוד עמו על שולחנו של יוסף, והיה מקרבן בשביל כבוד אביו, ומשמת יעקב לא קירבן.

Some of the meforshim (e.g. see Malbim, Ksva vhaKabbalah) learn that the word  ל֥וּ here does not mean  שמא ישטמנו, like Rashi explains, but rather  הלואי.  The brothers wanted Yosef to express whatever anger, whatever hatred, whatever bad feelings he may harbor against them.  Why would they want such a thing?  Because worse than suffering someone's anger is suffering being ignored.  

Pharoah is like a celebrity whose moment in the sun has faded, and as much as they hated being hounded by media and fans in the past, they now miss the limelight.  Pharoah exclaimed "Woe is me!" because worse than suffering G-d's makkos is suffering the fate of being ignored.

3) Even though Moshe told the people that "Hashem yilachem lachem" and they had nothing to fear, he paused and started to daven, as if he was less than confident of the outcome.  Hashem immediately stopped him:

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר ה׳ אֶל⁠־מֹשֶׁ֔ה מַה⁠־תִּצְעַ֖ק אֵלָ֑י דַּבֵּ֥ר אֶל⁠־בְּנֵי⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וְיִסָּֽעוּ׃

וְאַתָּ֞ה הָרֵ֣ם אֶֽת⁠־מַטְּךָ֗ וּנְטֵ֧ה אֶת⁠־יָדְךָ֛ עַל⁠־הַיָּ֖ם וּבְקָעֵ֑הוּ וְיָבֹ֧אוּ בְנֵֽי⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל בְּת֥וֹךְ הַיָּ֖ם בַּיַּבָּשָֽׁה׃

What was Moshe nervous about? 

(Netziv writes that Moshe assumed that Hashem would save Bn"Y b'derech ha'teva.  When things are done b'derech ha'teva, such as fighting a war, the overall outcome may be guaranteed, but there is no guarantee against harm to each individual.  Therefore, Moshe davened.)  

The Midrash comments on the pasuk וּבְנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הָלְכ֥וּ בַיַּבָּשָׁ֖ה בְּת֣וֹךְ הַיָּ֑ם וְהַמַּ֤יִם לָהֶם֙ חֹמָ֔ה מִֽימִינָ֖ם וּמִשְּׂמֹאלָֽם that 

היו מלאכי השרת תמהים לומר בני אדם עובדי עבודה זרה מהלכין ביבשה בתוך הים, ומנין שאף הים נתמלא עליהם חמה, שנאמר (שמות י״ד:כ״ט) והמים להם חמה אל תקרי חומה אלא חימה

When the malachim looked down at Bn"Y, they didn't see much difference between them and the Mitzrim.  Why did Bn"Y deserve for the Yam to split for them and for the Mitzrim to drown?

Whether Moshe was aware of their thinking, or whether the same thought occurred to him independently, it clouded his judgment and led him to pause and question whether Bn"Y were deserving of the victory that was promised.  It led him to think that without his tefilos, the Jewish people might not make it.

Hashem's response: וְאַתָּ֞ה הָרֵ֣ם אֶֽת⁠־מַטְּךָ֗ וּנְטֵ֧ה אֶת⁠־יָדְךָ֛ .  You remember back in parshas Shmos, when Moshe was arguing with G-d about whether to accept his shlichus, Moshe questioned the faith of Bn"Y: וַיַּ֤עַן מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֹּ֔אמֶר וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא⁠־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י (4:1)  Hashem responded by telling Moshe that he will give him signs to perform.  First, to cast down his staff and it will turn into a snake.  Rashi explains: רמז לו שספר לשון הרע על ישראל, ותפש אומנותו של נחש.  Secondly, He told him to put his hand inside his cloak and it would turn white.  Rashi  explains: אף באות זה רמז שלשון הרע סיפר באומרו: לא יאמינו לי (שמות ד׳:א׳), לפיכך הלקהו בצרעת, כמו שלקתה מרים על לשון הרע  Never cast aspersions on the Jewish people.  

When the malachim began to voice their doubts, giving Moshe pause, Hashem reminded him of this lesson he learned on day #1 of his appointment as leader. וְאַתָּ֞ה הָרֵ֣ם אֶֽת⁠־מַטְּךָ֗, pick up that staff that turned into a snake when you questioned the faith of Bn"Y; וּנְטֵ֧ה אֶת⁠־יָדְךָ֛ stretch out your hand which turned white because you spoke lashon ha'ra against my people.  How can you question the merits of the Jewish people compared to those of the Egyptians?  (Techeiles Mordechai of the Maharasham).  

Moshe's argument  וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא⁠־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י, was finally put to rest at Yam Suf, וַיַּֽאֲמִ֙ינוּ֙ בַּֽה׳ וּבְמֹשֶׁ֖ה עַבְדּֽוֹ׃.

the dog that didn't bark at midnight

וּלְכֹ֣ל׀ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל לֹ֤א יֶֽחֱרַץ⁠־כֶּ֙לֶב֙ לְשֹׁנ֔וֹ לְמֵאִ֖ישׁ וְעַד⁠־בְּהֵמָ֑ה לְמַ֙עַן֙ תֵּֽדְע֔וּן אֲשֶׁר֙ יַפְלֶ֣ה ה׳ בֵּ֥ין מִצְרַ֖יִם וּבֵ֥ין יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ (11:7)

The Mechilta comments on the pasuk וְאַנְשֵׁי⁠־קֹ֖דֶשׁ תִּהְי֣וּן לִ֑י וּבָשָׂ֨ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֤ה טְרֵפָה֙ לֹ֣א תֹאכֵ֔לוּ לַכֶּ֖לֶב תַּשְׁלִכ֥וּן אֹתֽוֹ (22:3) that nevil is thrown to the dogs as a reward for their not barking.   ולמה לכלב, ללמדך שאין הקב״ה מקפח שכר כל בריה, שנאמר (פ׳ בא) ולכל בני ישראל לא יחרץ כלב לשונו, אמר הקב״ה תן לו שכרו 

In the plague of frogs described in last week's parsha the Torah tells us that the frogs jumped even into the burning hot ovens of the Egyptians, sacrificing their lives to see that the plague effected ever corner of Egypt.  The gemara writes (Pes 53) that Chanaya, Mishael, and Azarya learned the din of mesirus nefesh from these frogs:

ת"ש עוד זו דרש תודוס איש רומי מה ראו חנניה מישאל ועזריה שמסרו [עצמן] על קדושת השם לכבשן האש נשאו קל וחומר בעצמן מצפרדעים ומה צפרדעים שאין מצווין על קדושת השם כתיב בהו ובאו [ועלו] בביתך [וגו'] ובתנוריך ובמשארותיך אימתי משארות מצויות אצל תנור הוי אומר בשעה שהתנור חם אנו שמצווין על קדושת השם על אחת כמה וכמה 

If the dogs get a reward for not barking, one would think the frogs surely deserve and even greater reward for their mesirus nefesh.  How come we don't find such a thing?  

It must be that keeping silent -- holding your bark in check -- is an even greater challenge and greater accomplishment than giving  up one's life.  And that's not just a lesson that applies to dogs and frogs.

2) What was so great about the dog's not barking?  The gemara (BK 60) writes that  ת"ר כלבים בוכים מלאך המות בא לעיר כלבים משחקים אליהו הנביא בא לעיר, so the fact that the dogs did not respond to the malach ha'mashchis was a miracle.  This, says the pasuk, was meant to demonstrate to us that Bn"Y is different from the Egyptians. As Rashbam explains:

 המלאך מזיק ומשחית בכורי מצרים, אבל בכורי ישראל אפילו קול ניבוח של מזיקי החיות לא יזיק אותם.

Do we really need the silence of the dogs to prove to us לְמַ֙עַן֙ תֵּֽדְע֔וּן אֲשֶׁר֙ יַפְלֶ֣ה ה׳ בֵּ֥ין מִצְרַ֖יִם וּבֵ֥ין יִשְׂרָאֵֽל?!  For the past 9 makkos, every makkah struck the Egyptians while Bn"Y was spared.  In makkas choshech, the Egyptians were sitting in the dark, incapable even of seeing how to get out of their chairs, and when a Jew entered the same room there was light.  The difference between Bn"Y and Egypt was as clear as night vs day!

The special significance to the dogs silence becomes clear if we look deeper into why Bn"Y was still in galus. If you recall from parshas Shmos, after Moshe struck down the Egyptian who was beating up a Jewish slave, the next day he went out and accosted two Jews who were fighting with each other.  They did not take well to his rebuke (2:14:

וַ֠יֹּ֠אמֶר מִ֣י שָֽׂמְךָ֞ לְאִ֨ישׁ שַׂ֤ר וְשֹׁפֵט֙ עָלֵ֔ינוּ הַלְהׇרְגֵ֙נִי֙ אַתָּ֣ה אֹמֵ֔ר כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר הָרַ֖גְתָּ אֶת⁠־הַמִּצְרִ֑י וַיִּירָ֤א מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֹּאמַ֔ר אָכֵ֖ן נוֹדַ֥ע הַדָּבָֽר׃

Rashi comments: 

וירא משה – על שראה בישראל רשעים דילטורין, אמר: מעתה שמא אינן ראויין ליגאל

It was the talebearing, the gossip, the lashon ha'ra, that Moshe now saw which led him to think that the Jewish people were not worthy of redemption at this time.  

The Torah tells us that there is a specific punishment for a baal lashon ha'ra.  The gemara (Pes 118) explains the juxtaposition of the two pesukim (22:30-23:1)

וְאַנְשֵׁי⁠־קֹ֖דֶשׁ תִּהְי֣וּן לִ֑י וּבָשָׂ֨ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֤ה טְרֵפָה֙ לֹ֣א תֹאכֵ֔לוּ לַכֶּ֖לֶב תַּשְׁלִכ֥וּן אֹתֽוֹ

לֹ֥א תִשָּׂ֖א שֵׁ֣מַע שָׁ֑וְא אַל⁠־תָּ֤שֶׁת יָֽדְךָ֙ עִם⁠־רָשָׁ֔ע לִהְיֹ֖ת עֵ֥ד חָמָֽס׃

as follows:

אמר רב ששת משום ר׳ אלעזר בן עזריה, כל המספר לשון הרע וכל המקבל לשון הרע וכל המעיד עדות שקר בחבירו ראוי להשליכו לכלבים, שנאמר (כ״ב ל׳) לכלב תשליכון אותו וכתיב בתרי׳ לא תשא שמע שוא וקרי בי׳ נמי לא תשיא

The punishment for the sin of lashon ha'ra is being thrown to the dogs.  

According to the Midrash, when the brothers saw Yosef coming towards them and they were debating what to do with him, they were thinking of throwing him to wild dogs.  They saw Yosef as a baal lashon ha'ra, and therefore deserving of that fate.  

In next week's parsha we will read that there was one idol left to the Egyptians that had not been destroyed -- בּעל צפון (see Rashi 14:2).  Figure out the gematriya and you have the same number ( צפן is chaseir) as כּלב רע.  Meaning, Bn"Y were still plagued a bit by this sin of lashon ha'ra.  They had not yet done all the work that that needed to do to be worthy of geulah -- look in next week's parsha at the infighting that took place by Yam Suf -- but Hashem was willing to put that aside and overlook it.  

The Maggid of Marrakech puts two and two together to explain our pasuk.  The Egyptians were being punished for their sins, but Bn"Y's hands were not completely clean either.  The cloud of על שראה בישראל רשעים דילטורין, אמר: מעתה שמא אינן ראויין ליגאל still hung over them.  Nonetheless, even though כל המקבל לשון הרע וכל המעיד עדות שקר בחבירו ראוי להשליכו לכלבים, Bn"Y got a free pass that night of Pesach and  לֹ֤א יֶֽחֱרַץ⁠־כֶּ֙לֶב֙ לְשֹׁנ֔וֹ. 

mitzvah of achilas korban pesach: beautiful diyuk of the Rogatchover

The Rogatchover has a beautiful diyuk in the lashon haRambam.  In hil Chu"M 8:7 the Rambam writes

ואחר כך מברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על אכילת הזבח ואוכל מבשר חגיגת ארבעה עשר תחלה. ומברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על אכילת הפסח ואוכל מגופו של פסח. ולא ברכת הפסח פוטרת של זבח ולא של זבח פוטרת של פסח:

Later in that same perek, the Rambam continues 

ואחר כך נמשך בסעודה ואוכל כל מה שהוא רוצה לאכול ושותה כל מה שהוא רוצה לשתות. ובאחרונה אוכל מבשר הפסח אפילו כזית ואינו טועם אחריו כלל.

In the first halacha, the Rambam refers to eating מגופו של פסח.  In the latter halacha, the Rambam refers to eating מבשר הפסח. Why the switch in terminology?

There is a fundamental machlokes Rashi and the Rambam with respect to the mitzvah of achilas pesach that opens the door to understanding the Rambam's precise use of language here.  

The Mishna in Pesachim 84 tells us  כל הנאכל בשור הגדול יאכל בגדי הרך וראשי כנפים והסחוסים  Rashi explains 

כל הנאכל בשור הגדול כו'. שכבר הוקשה כל מה שעתיד להקשות בו: יאכל בגדי הרך. ראוי לאכילה בפסח בן שמנה ימים אבל מה שאין נאכל בשור הגדול אין נמנין עליו בפסח אע"פ שעכשיו רך הוא עתיד להקשות בסופו

According to Rashi our sugya comes to answer the basic question of "What parts of the animal must be eaten?"  

Rashi alludes to the machlokes R"Y and Reish Lakish in the gemara

 איתמר גידין שסופן להקשות רבי יוחנן אמר נמנין עליהן בפסח ריש לקיש אמר אין נמנין עליהן בפסח

If a piece of meat is soft now but would become hard if the animal matured, need it be eaten?  Do we look at the state of the meat now, or do we judge by what can be eaten in a mature animal?  The gemara loops our mishna into the issue:

יתיביה ריש לקיש לר' יוחנן כל הנאכל בשור הגדול יאכל בגדי הרך ומה הן ראשי כנפים והסחוסים הני אין אבל גידין שסופן להקשות לא א"ל תנא הני וה"ה להנך

The Rambam (K.P 10:10) has a different spin on this sugya.  He paskens:

גידין הרכין שסופן להקשות אע"פ שהן ראויין לאכילה עתה ונאכלין בפסח אין נמנין עליהן. 

The question is not, "What must be eaten?" but rather, "What parts of the animal can one do minuy on?"  גידין שסופן להקשות are excluded from minuy, but they still must be eaten, as the Rambam clearly says,ונאכלין בפסח!  

What we see from the Rambam (R' Chaim in the stencils as a slightly different hesber) is that there are two dinim, what the Rogatchover calls (bottom of first column here) the גוף הפּסח vs the תורת מצוה of eating the pesach, or what I would call 1) the chalos shem korban pesach on the animal vs 2) the chovas hagavra to eat korban pesach.  

You can have something that is not included in the mitzvah of minuy because there is no chovas hagavra to eat it, but at the same time because there is a chalos shem korban pesach on the entire animal, it must be consumed.

Some nafka minos the Rogatchover mentions:

A)  גידין שסופן להקשות can be eaten in a differnt chabura, unlike korban pesach which must be eaten all in the same chabura

B) גידין שסופן להקשות can be consumed after chatzos, which is the endpoint according to R' Elazar ben Azarya for the mitzvas achilas pesach of the gavra

C) גידין שסופן להקשות can be eaten even by those who have not done minuy on this particular korban

Coming back to the Rambam in hil Chu"M, when the Rambam speaks about the mitzva of achilas hakorban, he uses the expression eating מגופו של פסח, to the exlusion of גידין שסופן להקשות.  The Rambam then later in the perek tells us that at the end of the meal there is a mitzvah to eat another k'zayis, and here he uses the term מבשר הפסח, a more inclusive term and includes גידין שסופן להקשות.  The chovas ha'gavra of achilas korban pesach has already been fulfilled at the start of the meal, but one must consume some of the cheftza shel korban to fulfill the idea of being נאכל על השׂובע and to consume what one can to avoid nosar. 

chodesh Shevat

The Shem m'Shmuel writes that the month of Shevat corresponds to sheivet Asher.  מאשר שמנה לחמו והוא יתן מעדני מלך.  Chazal tell us תָּנוּ רַבָּנָן: "וְטוֹבֵל בַּשֶּׁמֶן רַגְלוֹ", זֶה חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל אָשֵׁר, שֶׁמּוֹשֵׁךְ שֶׁמֶן כַּמַּעְיָן.  Asher was blessed with plentiful olive oil.  Even though zayis is קשׁה לשׁכּחה, the oil that comes from the zayis helps one remember: כשם שהזית משכח לימוד של שבעים שנה כך שמן זית משיב לימוד של שבעים שנה (Horiyos 13).  Similarly, Chazal tell us  וישלח יואב תקועה ויקח משם אשה חכמה. מאי שנא תקועה? אמר רבי יוחנן: מתוך שרגילין בשמן זית, חכמה מצויה בהן The zayis is the outside shell that when pounded on and pounded on produces chochma, produces the power to grow in Torah.  We've been pounded by winter, and then comes Shevat, chag ha'ilanot, spring is around the corner, everything starts to grow again and starts to bloom.  Shem m'Shmuel writes that we are on an upward trajectory from here on out: chag ha'ilanot, Purim, then Pesach, then sefira and finally mattan Torah.

But we've been pounded by more than winter going back a year and a half already.  We IY"H will hopefully emerge with greater chochma, greater Torah, leading to chodesh ha'aviv, chodesh ha'geulah.

why Rashi gives 2 different reasons for 4 kosos

Rashi on the first Mishna in Arvei Pesachim writes that the 4 kosos on leil ha'seder correspond to the 4 leshonos of geulah mentioned in our parsha:

ארבע כוסות. כנגד ארבעה לשוני גאולה האמורים בגלות מצרים והוצאתי אתכם והצלתי אתכם וגאלתי אתכם ולקחתי אתכם בפרשת וארא:

However, on daf 108, commenting on R' Yehoshua ben Levi's din that even women have to drink 4 kosos because שאף הן היו באותו הנס, Rashi there writes that the kosos correspond to the kosos mentioned in the dream of Sar haMashkim:

ארבע כוסות. שלשה כנגד ג' כוסות שנאמרו בפסוק זה וכוס פרעה בידי וגומר ורביעי ברכת המזון

Why does Rashi gives two different reasons for the 4 kosos?

If you were reading this blog close to 20 years ago you know there is a chakira of the Brisker Rav (stencils Archin 3) as to how the principle of af hein works.  Without af hein, women would be exempt from the mitzvah of 4 kosos because it is a mitzvas aseh she'hazman gerama.  Yesh lachkor: does af hein simply lift the ptur of zman gerama, or is it a new mechayeiv, i.e. even though the mitzvah may be zman gerama, in this case there is a new reason for women to be chayavos?  

Tos and Rashbam disagree as to whether af hein means women were part and parcel of the dangers of galus Mitzrayim, or whether it means they were the cause of the geulah (see this post for a nafka mina):

באותו הנס. פי' רשב''ם שעל ידם נגאלו וכן במגילה ע''י אסתר ובחנוכה ע''י יהודית וקשה דאף משמע שאינן עיקר ועוד דבירושלמי גריס שאף הן היו באותו ספק משמע באותה סכנה דלהשמיד להרוג ולאבד 

It could be that this machlokes hinges on the chakira of the Brisker Rav. According to Rashbam, it's not enough to simply equate women with men, to say that they shared the same pains of galus.  Af hein demands coming up with a special reason to be mechayeiv women because af hein is a mechayeiv in its own right.

This could be why Rashi gives two different reasons for 4 kosos.  Rashi on the Mishna is explaining why even a poor person has to have 4 kosos, and so he invokes the reason on ארבעה לשוני גאולה האמורים בגלות מצרים.  However, that's not a good enough reason to be mechayeiv women. These leshonos that are part of בגלות מצרים, which women experienced alongside the men, would just equate them to men, but af hein demands creating a new mechayeiv. Therefore, Rashi on daf 108 refers to the kosos in Saf haMashkim's dream.  Targun Yonasan explains Yosef's interpretation of that dream as follows (Braishis 40:10):

ואמר ליה יוסף דין סוף פושרנא דחלמא תלתי מצוגייא תלתי אבהת עלמא הינון אברהם יצחק ויעקב דמן בני בניהון עתידין למשתעבדא למצרים בטינא ובליבנא ובכל פולחנהא באנפי ברא ומן בתר כדין מתפרקין על יד תלת רעיין     

The three "shepherds" of Moshe, Aharon, and Miriam delivered Bn"Y from galus; they were instrumental in bringing about the geulah. This sounds like Rashbam's approach of seeing women as the cause of the nes, not just participants in the experience.

(See the Kli Chemdah on our parsha who also discusses this stira in Rashi.)

"rav v'atzum" is not just about numbers

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֶל⁠־עַמּ֑וֹ הִנֵּ֗ה עַ֚ם בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל רַ֥ב וְעָצ֖וּם מִמֶּֽנּוּ

 Netziv points out that at this point in time, what Pharoah was saying was categorically false

 אע״ג שהיו אז עדיין מעט אנשי חיל מישראל נגד מצרים, ולא היה לחוש לעת עתה שיתגברו על מצרים

but Pharoah was anticipating what would happen given the growth rate of the population.  Ohr haChaim offers a different answer:

 ואומרו רב ועצום פירוש כי באמצעות היותם עם אחד ומיוחד הגם שיהיו מעטים בערך שאר האומות יחשבו לרבים ועצומים מהם לצד שהם כל אחד נותן נפשו על אחיו, וזה ידוע ליודעי ערך מלחמה

Strength is not just a matter of numbers.  A large force that lacks cohesion can be overcome by a smaller force that is unified.  Bn"Y may have been small in number, but they had an unmatched cohesiveness as a people, and were therefore considered רַ֥ב וְעָצ֖וּם.   Every individual was willing to give even his life for the sake of his friend.  

True then, still true today.

With this Ohr haChaim as background, we can better appreciate what happens later in the parsha where we read how Moshe came across an Egyptian who was striking a fellow Jew:

וַיִּ֤פֶן כֹּה֙ וָכֹ֔ה וַיַּ֖רְא כִּ֣י אֵ֣ין אִ֑ישׁ וַיַּךְ֙ אֶת⁠־הַמִּצְרִ֔י וַֽיִּטְמְנֵ֖הוּ בַּחֽוֹל

The Binah laItim explains that Moshe saw that there were other Jews who were standing there who witnessed this horrible attack, and yet וַיַּ֖רְא כִּ֣י אֵ֣ין אִ֑ישׁ none of them were willing to stand up for the victim.  

Moshe was willing to give these onlookers the benefit of the doubt.  Bn"Y are by nature rachmanin.  For better or worse, we avoid getting involved in street brawls or violence.  This was undoubtedly all the more true considering that the onlookers in this case were slaves who were subjugated by the Egyptians, and so psychologically they would have been all the more hesitant to take a stand against them.  Since no one else did anything, Moshe took it upon himself to be the אִ֑ישׁ where no one else could.  As Chazal tell us, במקום שאין אנשים ראוי להיות איש

Next day Moshe came across two Jews fighting among themselves:

וַ֠יֹּ֠אמֶר מִ֣י שָֽׂמְךָ֞ לְאִ֨ישׁ שַׂ֤ר וְשֹׁפֵט֙ עָלֵ֔ינוּ הַלְהׇרְגֵ֙נִי֙ אַתָּ֣ה אֹמֵ֔ר כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר הָרַ֖גְתָּ אֶת⁠־הַמִּצְרִ֑י וַיִּירָ֤א מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֹּאמַ֔ר אָכֵ֖ן נוֹדַ֥ע הַדָּבָֽר 

Rashi comments:  נודע לי דבר שהייתי תמה עליו: מה חטאו ישראל מכל שבעים אומות להיות נרדים בעבודת פרך, אבל רואה אני שהם ראוים לכך.

Moshe now saw that it wasn't because of their nature as rachmanim that the Jewish onlookers avoid the conflict, v'ha'raayah, they are busy fighting with each other!  What happened to the  כל אחד נותן נפשו על אחיו that the Ohr haChaim described?  What happened to the ahavas yisrael?

אָכֵ֖ן נוֹדַ֥ע הַדָּבָֽר why Bn"Y were in the situation they were in.

Still, we can ask why seeing just these two people alone trading blows changed Moshe's perspective.  הָאִ֤ישׁ אֶחָד֙ יֶחֱטָ֔א וְעַ֥ל כׇּל־הָעֵדָ֖ה תִּקְצֹֽף?  Who says these two people are necessarily representative of the entire nation?

I have seen three answers to this question:

1) Midos ra'os are like a contagious virus.  The problem won't stay with just two people -- it will inevitable rub off on and spread to others (R' Gershon Edelstein). 

2) The fact that two people behave in such a way is indicative of the fact that the community has a whole has a lax attitude towards the issue (to some degree or other).  Let me give you an example.  When I was growing up, I don't think any kid wearing a yalmuka would ride a scooter on Shabbos, certainly not to shul.  It just wasn't done.  Recently my wife and I were walking on Shabbos and in front of one shul it looked like they needed a parking lot for the amount of scooters in front of the building.  Our attitude towards Shabbos has changed.  The kid riding the scooter didn't cause the change; he/she is just a siman. When we were kids we knew it wasn't done; now kids don't have that same innate sense that this is something off limits. I can say the same about our attitude towards kedushas beis ha'knesses -- does anyone think twice anymore about walking into minyan with a cup of coffee and cell phone out? -- or any number of things.  If there was a feeling that this was completely out of the norm of what our communal standards are, people would be far less likely to do it.  People no longer feel that way.  Moshe thought the same about the infighting that he witnessed.  If this was truly way beyond the pale of accepted behavior, it would never have happened.  The fact that it did showed that something in the bigger picture was off (R' Shteinman).

3) Once you get involved in breaking down the community between "those guys" who engage in the wrong behavior vs the rest of us, m'meila there is no longer a united klal, and Moshe understood that geulah can only come to the klal in the zechus of the klal. (R' Shteinman)