Having already stated "v'Hayah k'Ezrach ha'Aretz" (12:48), what is this Pasuk coming to add?
Rashi and Targum Yonasan: It adds that a Ger has the Din of a Yisrael regarding all other Mitzvos in the Torah as well. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 257.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'One Torah, etc.' - This equates the Ger with the Ezrach, regarding all the other Mitzvos of the Torah as well." Rashi wrote on the preceding verse (Rashi to 12:48) - "He shall bring a Pesach - We might have thought that a new convert must bring a Korban Peach immediately. [That Pasuk] therefore adds, 'he shall be like the citizen (ibid)." It seems that the starting assumption in verse 12:48, is that a Ger is obligated in Mitzvos! If so, why is the derivation from our verse (12:49) necessary?
Mizrachi: Once we derive, in 12:48, that the Ger and Ezrach have the same rules for Korban Pesach; I might have thought that regarding other Mitzvos they are different. Our verse teaches that this is not so.
Gur Aryeh #1: While it is true that "He shall perform a Pesach" (12:48) implies doing so immediately, and then "he shall be like a citizen of the land" (ibid.) resolves that it is not so; this does not yet prove regarding all Mitzvos that a Ger should be equivalent to a Yisrael. For that, our verse is necessary. 1
Gur Aryeh #2: Many of the Mitzvos (not just Korban Pesach) are in order to remember Yetzias Mitzrayim. Our Pasuk is necessary to teach that regarding all such Mitzvos, despite that a Ger did not himself experience these miracles, he is equally obligated in the Mitzvah. 2
Rashi writes: "'One Torah, etc.' - This equates the Ger with the Ezrach, regarding all the other Mitzvos of the Torah as well." If so, why did verse 12:19 need to specifically include a Ger regarding the prohibition of Chametz?
Gur Aryeh: Once that Pasuk mentions "Ezrach," we would think to exclude a Ger - were he not specifically mentioned. 1
Gur Aryeh: That is how we must understand Rashi (to 12:19) as well. But now that Gerim are explicitly included in these Mitzvos, the term "Ezrach" in that verse must teach some other derivation. Also refer to 12:19:5.1:1.
