Laws of Chametz and Matzah Chapter 7 Laws 6-13: Laws of Freedom (Auto Translated)

Summary of Chapter 7 of Rambam Hilchos Chametz U’Matzah — The Rambam’s Approach to Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim

Introduction — Summary of Chapter 7

Speaker 1:

Gentlemen, is there a recording device? Ah, we have finished sippur yetzias Mitzrayim. We are on chapter 7. He says students.

Speaker 2:

They are not for me to say gentlemen.

Speaker 1:

Okay, okay, okay. I would have preferred to say dear friends. Students, students, it sounds bad.

Speaker 2:

What is it? It’s a fact, not a judgment. They are now listening to your shiur.

Speaker 1:

The fact is that they should call me chassidim, as you said earlier, okay? I have enough self-respect that I don’t want to myself…

Speaker 2:

Today they called out yechi adoneinu before the shiur. Was it ever like that before?

Speaker 1:

One hundred percent. The Hungarian Jews knew how to do it. And others did it such that their grandchildren know how to respect the rebbe.

Speaker 2:

Interesting. Even sometimes it’s before the… But more Hungarian chassidim.

Speaker 1:

Baruch Hashem, David, it’s not necessarily. It’s only the Hungarian chassidim that one knows from Chasam Sofer. The Hungarian chassidim have a thing that my rebbe drove a Cadillac. What do I care that your rebbe drove a Cadillac? He drives a Cadillac, no? Why does he want his rebbe to have their chassidim? Because he lacks self-confidence?

Speaker 2:

No, I think there’s a plan for such nothingness. It’s understood that it comes from being raised with this.

Speaker 1:

Not only. In Lakewood for example, the rosh yeshiva should sit on a broken bench. He’s a rosh yeshiva after all. You love him, no? Don’t you want him to have a comfortable chair?

Anyway, when it comes to this, I think friends is a good word. If only I should be a friend to other people, I should be a friend to myself.

Speaker 2:

I mean that they consider themselves hey, kol sheloshah devarim alai.

Speaker 1:

No, they’ve already learned.

Speaker 2:

Ah, they haven’t learned?

Speaker 1:

They haven’t learned enough.

The Rambam’s Approach — “Backwards” from the Mishnah

Speaker 1:

Okay, so let’s try to finish summarizing what we can learn from here. What we can say from here, because I need to have something to say.

What we learned is that the Rambam, okay, went backwards, this is my story. The Rambam went backwards.

The Mishnah and the Haggadah shel Pesach

In the Mishnah, he writes in the Mishnah, in the Haggadah shel Pesach, or the Haggadah shel Pesach is in any case. No, no, no, wait, wait, let me explain to you a second.

He writes in the Mishnah in the Haggadah shel Pesach, which is perhaps older than the Mishnah, I don’t know clearly. There’s an investigation whether the Mishnah in Maseches Pesachim, there’s a piece of Haggadah there, vehi she’amdah. Mishnayos goes after everything, Mishnayos are like a siddur kind of thing. And the question whether the Mishnah came after the Haggadah shel Pesach, not necessarily was there a Haggadah, but some Haggadah already existed.

I’m saying the whole Mishnah, look in arvei Pesachim, you must see that it goes arvei Pesachim night, and mozgin lo, and do you have a Mishnayos?

Speaker 2:

I saw, it goes in the seder Haggadah.

Speaker 1:

Not only with the seder, it looks almost like he’s saying a nusach Haggadah. It’s even a piece of nusach Haggadah I saw. It says lefichach also in the…

Speaker 2:

Yes, is it there?

Speaker 1:

Yes. Here you have Pesachim chapter 10, 11. Look.

Speaker 2:

Ah, this begins with mozgin, the 4 cups, mozgin lo kos rishon, no, it doesn’t say yayin mazug, mozgin lo. Hevi’u lefanav, mozgin lo, vekan haben sho’el, lefi da’ato shel ben, Rabbi Eliezer omer, bechol dor vador, lefichach anachnu chayavim, Hallel.

Speaker 1:

More or less the Mishnah writes down the Haggadah shel Pesach. There are those who print Haggados, the first page will be the Mishnayos. Because this is like, it could be that it’s literally the Haggadah shel Pesach of the Mishnah, and this is the Haggadah.

The Mishnah is a Siddur, Not Just Halachah

Now, what I mean to say with this, is that it’s already a piece of siddur, it’s not just like halachah. The Mishnah doesn’t go like the Rambam with the logical structure, what is the main law, and what is the general rule, what are the details, and so on. The Mishnah tells the story. The time according to what…

Speaker 2:

Yes, but now the Mishnah is already almost a siddur.

Speaker 1:

It’s already the whole story. One doesn’t make a distinction between d’oraisa and derabbanan, with coming to the… He says, it’s a story, it’s sippur yetzias Mitzrayim.

The Rambam Divides — Chapter 7 and Chapter 8

Speaker 2:

Right. But the holy Rambam did want to divide the two things, right?

Speaker 1:

The Rambam wrote chapter 7, he speaks about mitzvos. He speaks about the mitzvah of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim. He says, “I’m almost innovating that there is such a mitzvah.” I mean he found it in Behag, but he says, he makes from this like a mitzvah. And the mitzvah is, “vehigadeta levincha”. This is the language, this is the whole Haggadah.

The Rambam took very seriously the language to bring down. The Rambam wanted to say that there is a mitzvah, and he says like Chazal say that it’s a mitzvah. Exactly.

And not only did he think this, the Rambam divided. In chapter 8 the Rambam says Haggadah. Here, chapter 8 the Rambam says, “seder asiyas mitzvah zo”, seder, there is a Rambam seder, literally the seder. But here the Rambam thought, if there are halachos, let’s first say the halachos, the general rules and the details of the halachos, afterwards we’ll see how to fulfill this.

So the Rambam went backwards, he decided from within the Haggadah shel Pesach of the Mishnah, all the halachos.

The Rambam’s Logical Structure

When we go not like the Rambam, one would say for example that the verse says, you will do all these things and your child will ask you. One doesn’t take now from the verse, the language, one takes up the sippur yetzias Mitzrayim. From the verse one can certainly say that it’s a story. The Mishnah says that there’s a Mishnah that says that one conducts oneself this way every year, but the Mishnah tells a story of how one conducts oneself.

And by the Rambam he thought, okay, there are certain halachos, certain things that one must fulfill, I know. For example what we learned, it must be mesaper, and it must be lefi da’as shel ben, and one must make a question, and one must make maschil bigenus. These are like halachos that one must do.

Afterwards how one fulfills the halachos is already like further details. And this is what the Rambam laid out with this. I don’t know clearly how the Rambam understands this, but this is the first five halachos in this book, in this chapter. It’s the general principles in the eyes of the Rambam, if I can understand, these are the principles.

You know what? You want to make your own Haggadah shel Pesach? Make sure it includes the recipe, the ingredients, the fundamentals. Exactly how, perhaps is not me’akev. And this is generally yes me’akev. Although I said that it’s also not me’akev, it’s also a cleverness that the Mishnah said, because one doesn’t make a question and answer, what happened? It’s almost like fake the question and answer.

Review of the Five Halachos

Speaker 1:

So, for the Rambam did understand it this way. If we go with the Rambam, the Rambam would have said thus, let’s review the five halachos.

Halachah 1 — The Mitzvah of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim

The first halachah is, there is a mitzvah that one must tell on the night of the fifteenth. This is the mitzvah. Automatically it’s obvious that it has nothing to do with a son, it has nothing to do with a question, it has nothing to do with anything. This is the first mitzvah.

Ah, so one must also say that the son is a way how one should do the mitzvah. There is a mitzvah, and if there is indeed a son one must inform him according to his understanding. The first mitzvah he says, mitzvah lehodi’a labanim afilu lo sha’alu. You would think that it’s only a mitzvah if one asks, but you see that in other places it says simply.

But this is already backwards, this is a language all built on languages from the Mishnah. But if I go with the logical structure, it’s a bit different, because there I would have had to say thus:

There is a mitzvah to tell. The mitzvah to tell has nothing to do with any children, nothing to do with any questions, and nothing to do with anything, as it says in halachah 1. The mitzvah has like a minimum and a maximum, kol hamarbeh harei zeh meshubach. The minimum the Rambam doesn’t say what it is. Okay, perhaps the minimum is approximately what it says in the next halachos, which these are certainly details of how it’s better to do it, or how I must do it.

Halachos 2-3 — Children, Question and Answer, Changes

How must one do it? First of all one must do it for the children. Or if they don’t ask, according to their understanding, or if they do ask. And one must make them ask, one must make a change so they will ask.

And it’s all interesting, because seemingly one would have said exactly the opposite, that you go into all the mitzvos, and so you also go into the mitzvah. The Rambam says, no, make a change. This is the correct understanding in the Mishnah.

I can further learn backwards. I say, by the Rambam it’s not that it’s backwards, rather it begins with the mitzvah of sippur. The mitzvah of sippur has, let’s say, some detail, perhaps a dispensation, I don’t know what to call it, a condition, that children, and in the children there is another… And the children should be in the manner of question and answer.

Speaker 2:

Exactly.

Speaker 1:

And automatically, that it must be in the manner of question and answer, one will need to make them ask the question. But if not, it’s also good, one can make question and answer without children.

Children and Question and Answer — Two Separate Matters

So, there are children and there is question and answer, which are two external like matters. One can do one or the other, the best is to do both of course. Because all the things that one does, one does seemingly also when one doesn’t have children.

Speaker 2:

No, for example the… He doesn’t write matzah anymore, but for example it suddenly says, the things that one asks in the mah nishtanah, one does also when one doesn’t have children.

Speaker 1:

Because you see thus, those things do have a reason in themselves, but the things that one grabs additionally, is indeed about the child.

Discussion: Changes Without Children

Speaker 2:

What is the custom, if one sits at the seder and one doesn’t have children there, one doesn’t make an afikoman, no? One doesn’t grab it.

Speaker 1:

How does one steal? I don’t understand, someone makes the seder alone, who steals the afikoman?

Speaker 2:

Anyway, one doesn’t steal.

Speaker 1:

Can one steal from oneself?

Speaker 2:

Perhaps the understanding is that one can ask from oneself, but one doesn’t steal from oneself.

Speaker 1:

There’s a dispute in the Biur Halachah. Anyway, there are such things, and it’s already a distinction.

Halachah 4 — Maschil Bigenus Umesayem Beshevach

Speaker 1:

Okay, this is halachah 3. Afterwards there are halachos of how the story goes. How the story is, how one must do it. Yetzias Mitzrayim. But there is a law, a special law, how is the order. The law is called one cannot speak of where one begins, from what kind of thing one must begin. And in this there is a question which one means. This is the question of where one begins. But there is a law “maschil bigenus umesayem beshevach”. This I spoke about at my drashah that was live.

Speaker 2:

No problem, it’s important to know.

The Source of “Maschil Bigenus Umesayem Beshevach”

Speaker 1:

The thing which is the good explanation that I said is a simple thing. The “maschil bigenus umesayem beshevach” is a thing that one sees in all the psalms of Hallel. When one says a psalm of Hallel it’s always like this. Seemingly this is the source, it’s not any… Always one speaks of how bad it was, how in the ground one was, and how not in the ground one is now. This is seemingly simple understanding.

Speaker 2:

I’m not speaking of verses, I’m speaking now of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim. I’m speaking of the troubles and the salvation.

Speaker 1:

Yes, “min hameitzar”, “betzeis Yisrael”, many places. When there is such a psalm one sees this. So it makes sense that therefore the Mishnah took it.

Speaker 2:

Is there, can one find without this?

Speaker 1:

Yes, I thought, for example “mizmor letodah” it doesn’t say…

Speaker 2:

Okay, what is there? Anyway it goes hodu.

Speaker 1:

So anyways, by korban todah there are usually the troubles that one had before one says the todah. When one says the korban todah, one says the “mizmor letodah”. But there are psalms of thanksgiving. I mean, “hodu laHashem” that one says erev Shabbos is also a “mizmor letodah” tune, all the troubles only.

Speaker 2:

So it says, they were in the… I thought you’re speaking of the todah that one says when one brings a korban todah.

Speaker 1:

No, one only says “lechayavim”.

Speaker 2:

Okay, but that’s just a short blessing.

Speaker 1:

But you see a Tehillim, for example the “hodu” of erev Shabbos, 107, yes, what does it say? One was lost in this, and the Almighty saved. It always goes like this, this is “maschil bigenus”.

Why One Must Begin with Disgrace

Now, on this “maschil bigenus”, this is actually the whole miracle, because a person who never had any suffering doesn’t begin to thank, because it’s by default, it comes like this. And before the Almighty makes him a trouble, He makes him bad, and before the Almighty makes him a lack, he doesn’t understand why.

But the fact is that one doesn’t need to thank after a great salvation. One can be such a Brisker, such a law, a law of shirah, a law of hoda’ah.

Maschil Bigenus Umesayem Beshevach — Thanksgiving Only After Trouble

The Matter of Thanksgiving Only After Trouble

Speaker 1:

So anyways, by korban todah there are usually the troubles that one goes through before one says the todah. Like one says by the korban todah, by the mizmor letodah, when one brings a korban todah one says the mizmor letodah. But this is a psalm here and there, I mean hodu laHashem that one says erev Shabbos is also a mizmor letodah tune, a thanks to say. There it says that they were in the…

Speaker 2:

Should a ben Torah not come to Torah at all? No, one only says lechayavim.

Speaker 1:

Perhaps he brings in… Okay, when you see a Tehillim, for example the hodu of erev Shabbos, ki le’olam chasdo, that one says, what does it say? They were lost and this, and the Almighty took them out. It always goes that this is maschil bigenus.

Now, on this maschil bigenus? This is actually the whole miracle, because a person who never had any suffering doesn’t begin to thank what is by default. So the Almighty comes…

Speaker 2:

But the Almighty gave a punishment, I don’t understand why.

Speaker 1:

But the fact is that one doesn’t need to be a miracle in trouble. It could be that a Brisker is such a law, a law of song, a law of…

Chazal did make in davening the Modim three times a day, one says that this is a kind of thanksgiving, and there one says that the important leaders interpret on the miracles that I don’t know, I don’t know what the understanding is, because I think that a miracle must be a salvation. The word nes isn’t usually used in lashon hakodesh, and nes always means when one is saved from something. I know that this is an understanding that one always says, but I think now that I don’t know if it’s…

Even the miracle of revealing knowledge in his father’s inheritance, there one says like indirectly, when I would when… I would have just gone into business, it lasted a moment, I wouldn’t have even thought of it. We don’t know the understandings well.

Speaker 2:

This is the “gilah kevodcha”. This is a good understanding. There is such a nusach, yes.

Speaker 1:

Like my proof is, exactly, my proof is that in the other versions that are very similar to this, “mi sheyatza min hanefichah bish’as tefilah”, it says there thus: “gilah kevodcha lefanecha, birtzoni nekavim nekavim”. It seems to me the same language. It’s a shame for a person to need to go constantly. A shame of the world.

I know that in the notes they bring out on the understanding you say, but I’m not saying it’s not true, I’m only saying that one always sees that a miracle…

Speaker 2:

You’re asking a question on the trials of life: perhaps it means yes, sometimes there were small troubles, I don’t know, the red light was too long. It could be that it’s a small trouble, but you see that the halachah is thus.

Why Doesn’t One Thank for Being Healthy?

Speaker 1:

What is the simple meaning? Does the halacha not hold of the Chassidic concept that one must thank the Almighty for everything? Why is it that if someone was healthy their whole life they don’t bring a korban todah (thanksgiving offering), but once they were sick they bring a korban todah? They were free their whole life, once they were imprisoned, what’s going on? It seems like it happens to a person. We’re talking about… It could be that we’re talking about a situation where one must thank the Almighty. I don’t know, it’s a Talmud, it speaks very well. I’m talking about back then when the person woke up, it’s not so simple.

But I ask you, the Torah, the truth, from the perspective of halacha, the halacha is the truth, no? That’s how we understand it, I hold. It could be that the halacha is not the truth. But there is no halacha that one must make a Birkat HaGomel when one was healthy. Perhaps yes, perhaps there is a chassidut that one should make a Birkat HaGomel. Perhaps there is a chassidut that one should bring a korban todah every day.

Olam K’minhago Noheg — The Answer

Speaker 1:

But the answer to this can be that when nothing happened, there was nothing extra, there was no change at all. Exactly, there is an explanation there in the Shelah. This is what the mashgichim say, that you have no right to expect to be healthy. It’s not correct, one does have a right. What does that mean? The Almighty made the world “olam k’minhago noheg” (the world follows its natural course). It’s a rachmanut shel olam (worldly mercy) that nature is not stable.

Yes, if one wins the lottery there is also a miracle, even though there was no trouble. But simply that one went to work and made a little money, that’s not a miracle. One doesn’t need to thank the Almighty. I don’t know, perhaps you have a different explanation.

Speaker 2:

A good explanation. Can’t you ask on Egypt itself? Indeed the fifty years when Jews didn’t have troubles, but those years one doesn’t thank. But one thanks the… whoever put us into Egypt.

Speaker 1:

He didn’t put us in, because… It comes from His… But the matter of free will etc. and Pharaoh has a sharp thing.

The Brisker Definition of the Law of Thanksgiving

Speaker 1:

In short, for some reason, one only thanks the Almighty. Particularly Brisk, because I hold that in Brisk when they say this, the Brisker Rav loved to say such things, definitions. If one wants to say a Litvish definition, a din hodaah (law of thanksgiving) only exists when there was trouble and one was saved. The law, the law that stands in the verse… But this thing is something else.

Okay, Rav Shimon Shkop said a chiddush, I heard it says there that one must be makir tov (recognize good) for an animal. That’s not din hodaah, that’s something else.

Okay, I can say, because a person doesn’t feel. I can’t say a person thanks. I mean life. That’s how people, one speaks a commentary. If this still stands, that a person should contemplate the good deeds of the Holy One Blessed be He, yes, … there is if not with not.

Okay, this is the apparent law of matchil bignoot (beginning with disgrace), and the law, it’s interesting, because the matchil bignoot is not, according to what I say, it’s a law in thanksgiving, not a story, one must say it perhaps, one must know for the story l’shabach shevach shel Makom (to praise the praise of the Place), or it’s a story for the children.

The Dispute Between Rav and Shmuel — Two Types of Disgrace

Speaker 1:

It’s interesting that when the matchil bignoot also has a bit of this way, it fits so, when Shem, yes Shem would have been a tzaddik introduced, it’s a dispute of an individual, when he would have only had good children until today, he also wouldn’t have had a descent and ascent for us, here when we begin with disgrace we had “Arami oved avi” (An Aramean tried to destroy my father), which we consider the important grandfathers, perhaps we wouldn’t have been known at all, all our things would have begun like Abraham Isaac Jacob, we would never have been considered, and it’s interesting, because it’s a different type of matchil bignoot. Because matchil bignoot, it’s not… If one says matchil bignoot that there was a trauma, automatically I am more aware… There one means, there is no trauma when one says one goes in “Arami oved avi.”

In any case, in this matter of disgrace and praise there are two disputes of Amoraim, Rav and Shmuel argued whether it means “initially they were idol worshippers,” or whether it means “we were slaves.” There we hold.

“And These Words Are Called the Haggadah” — Law 7

Speaker 1:

Afterwards the Rambam brings “and these words”. We don’t know what the meaning of “and these words” is. Apparently the Rambam means to say that besides all these things that I just said, besides the matter of questions and the matter of matchil bignoot, there is another condition in the Haggadah, that one must speak about the reasons for the three mitzvot, Pesach, matzah and maror.

So in short, if you want to make your own text of the Haggadah, remember to do these two and a half things, okay? A question with an answer, with a change, and matchil bignoot u’mesayem b’shevach (beginning with disgrace and ending with praise), number two, and number three, Pesach, matzah and maror.

This is what the Rambam connects, this the Rambam doesn’t put in as a part of the Haggadah. One minute, one minute. The Rambam states “and these words are called the Haggadah”. This is the end of the laws of the Haggadah. That’s how I see it. “And these words,” in other words, the Haggadah that you know is composed of these four laws.

Speaker 2:

But you see that this is just a minimum, if you don’t have the matchil bignoot.

Speaker 1:

No, I’m telling you, I don’t agree. Here the Rambam doesn’t look like that. The Rambam looks, okay, I don’t know what the Rambam had in mind. He says whether each thing is indispensable, I don’t know. But it appears from the Rambam that these four laws are the laws of the Haggadah. “And these words are called the Haggadah.” In other words, making questions and answers, making matchil bignoot, making Pesach, matzah and maror, that’s called Haggadah. These are the laws of the Haggadah. It has a concept, Haggadah comes from “v’higadeta l’vincha” (and you shall tell your son). But that’s called Haggadah. That’s how I would understand it.

Speaker 2:

What do you do with the places where it says in the verse “v’higadeta l’vincha”? Once it says that on…

Speaker 1:

It doesn’t matter. “And it shall be when your children say to you, ‘What is this service to you?’ And you shall say, ‘It is a Pesach sacrifice to Hashem.’” So one can answer about the Pesach. These are the sources that the Rambam brings. “And no wise person shall eat bones,” “and you shall tell your son because of this Hashem did for me”. It could be this refers to matzah. I don’t know, but if it’s… Okay, now already, we can go further.

Rabban Gamliel — Three Ways to Understand

Speaker 1:

Okay, in any case. So, I don’t know, I want… Because one can also say, there is, I once spoke, I don’t remember what the poskim say about this Rabban Gamliel. There are those who say that it’s indeed, besides the entire Haggadah one must say this, which you people who are very careful, they greatly increase saying this Rabban Gamliel, because they say that this is the main explanation.

Speaker 2:

Yes, Rabban Gamliel also does something else here, that the story is not separated from the mitzvot of the night. There are the three mitzvot of the night of Pesach, matzah and maror. Yes yes, it’s a beautiful Rabban Gamliel. No, one must think whether this is his function, that the story of the Exodus from Egypt is not detached. That means, let’s say that a person will do nine o’clock to fulfill the mitzvah of the story of the Exodus from Egypt, ten o’clock one sits down to the Seder. But Rabban Gamliel says that this is not the way one does it, it’s a part of the Pesach, matzah and maror.

Speaker 1:

Okay, but the Rambam is the one who put this under the category of the story of the Exodus from Egypt. It could be that Rabban Gamliel said differently. It could be that Rabban Gamliel in general, perhaps he brings a completely different source for the entire matter of the story of the Exodus from Egypt. Perhaps this is simply a source that this is a part of the service of Pesach, maror, I don’t know, how one understood this.

“Mah ta’aseh mishneh geulah” (What will you do, repeat the redemption), I also don’t know in other versions how it is, but you’re right, “Mah ta’aseh mishneh geulah” is also a verse in practice. Yes, because so much it’s a question, whatever.

So, it could be that simply Rabban Gamliel brings another… Perhaps Rabban Gamliel is according to his approach. In other words, the question is what Rabban Gamliel is. One can learn Rabban Gamliel three ways. Have you heard of this before? One can learn Rabban Gamliel three ways:

One is as an addition to the main Haggadah. “It’s not enough that you begin with disgrace and end with praise” and everything, you must also explain the reasons for the mitzvot.

Number two, as… One must, as you said, it’s a plus, it adds an obligation. The second thing one can say is that it’s a… One doesn’t need to speak so much, one even fulfills if one speaks the three basic things. Do you understand what I’m saying? I mean it.

Or one can say alternative. Positive, negative, alternative. That the approach had one plus.

Laws of the Haggadah: Rabban Gamliel’s Law and In Every Generation

Law 5 (Continued) — Three Ways to Understand Rabban Gamliel’s Law

Speaker 1:

One, it’s as a “separate section” of the Haggadah. “Not enough” that one begins with disgrace and ends with praise and all these things. One must also have done the reasons for the mitzvot.

Number two, as… One must, as you said, it’s a plus, it adds an obligation.

The second thing one can say is that it’s a negative. He says, one doesn’t need to speak so much, one even fulfills if one speaks the three basic things. Do you understand what I’m saying? A minus.

Or one can say alternative. Positive, negative, alternative. That Rabban Gamliel had a different Haggadah. The earlier Tannaim said Haggadah means matchil bignoot, Haggadah means this. He says, I don’t know, Haggadah means aha, perhaps this is the source. Since it says “v’higadeta,” what does it say? Rabban Gamliel said, it says, “Anyone who didn’t say,” he says Pesach. In other words, what is the deed here? This is a Pesach, this is a matzah, this is a maror. That’s all. So this is an alternative Haggadah.

These are the three ways that I think one can learn. In any case, there are more ways in the commentators.

If you look in the Sefer HaMaftei’ach, you’ll see that he simply brings forty-four explanations on the matchil bignoot. But this is a… By the Rambam I don’t see that one can interpret anything with this. Besides this, by the Rambam it’s apparently not alternative, not positive, not negative, but another law in the Haggadah. Another thing. I have very much Sefer HaMaftei’ach with him every Haggadah, every long night before Pesach.

Speaker 2:

Correct.

Speaker 1:

By the Rambam it comes out that it’s not a negative part, not a positive, not an alternative, but another law. Here one can say “from the laws of the Haggadah,” or as he says “things included in the Haggadah,” as he says “things called the Haggadah,” this is another one of the things. So it appears to me.

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Discussion: The Dispute About “Lo Yatza”

Speaker 1:

There is a dispute. He brings here that there is a dispute whether he fulfilled his obligation of storytelling. He brings the dispute?

Speaker 2:

Yes, he brings it. Exactly.

Speaker 1:

It’s known that the Rambam holds that he holds here in the middle of speaking the story of the Exodus from Egypt, as he says, there is a dispute. What is the dispute? What is the meaning of the words “lo yatza” (he didn’t fulfill). He brings the Rashi. There are those who say that “lo yatza” means that one didn’t fulfill the matzah and maror, which is an interesting thing. He understands that the story is something a condition in the matzah and maror, that it could be other Rishonim don’t hold that there is an extra mitzvah of the story of the Exodus from Egypt.

So in general, the manner of eating of the matzah, that one should eat the matzah, Rishonim in the Gemara, things that one does… But another thing is he brings the Ramban, the Ran, and the Ritva, all of them say that the ‘lo yatza’ is not literal.

Speaker 2:

How is one fulfilled? Ah, lo yatza. I always had this… The Rishonim understood so. When it says in the Gemara ‘lo yatza’? Lo yatza? Lo yatza, read it. Yes, he didn’t do it correctly. Lo yatza. Wait. Calm. Calm down. One is fulfilled.

Speaker 1:

You understand, for this it must mean ‘some significance’ like the Chachamim. How does one go with the language? It says ‘lo yatza’. Ah, lo yatza doesn’t mean lo yatza. Ah, as if, they all understood that… Why do they say this? Because they understand that ‘lo yatza’ means he wants to say ‘lo yatza’ the laws of matzah and maror.

This can’t be. One must say that ‘lo yatza’ is not literal. If one learns that it means ‘lo yatza’ the main obligation of the Haggadah, then it can be. This is the minimum of the story. But then it can be ‘lo yatza’ literally.

One must know, because what happened if he did say the entire thing from Terach until receiving the Torah? But he left out the technical aspects of the miracles that happened in Egypt, the details of Pesach, matzah, and maror. On this it can indeed be ‘lo yatza’. It’s indeed ‘telling’ being a ‘storyteller’, but he didn’t tell. In my opinion it’s simple that one is fulfilled. Because it doesn’t make sense.

One says that the ‘lo yatza’ here should only mean a language, because it’s simply so. One says “anyone who increases is praiseworthy,” one says ‘matchil bignoot’. But he says, the basic basic is this. He doesn’t mean to say that one doesn’t fulfill the mitzvah. Again, if you learn like us, the simple meaning that it’s a minimum. It’s an ‘explanation’. Yes, he says, he indeed did very much to be praiseworthy to say. But this is not… But this is not… This doesn’t make sense. This is not his language.

Again, it depends how one learns around the other parts of the Mishnah. One can say that… I also say… Both in the Haggadah and also here in the page. It came right after the words “and anyone who adds and lengthens is praiseworthy.” It’s indeed very important that you should increase, but increasing is not enough. If in your increasing you spoke all kinds of levels, but you didn’t mention the simple basics, that’s the main thing. He doesn’t mean here to squeeze on the…

Speaker 2:

But that’s not… It’s to be clarified, that’s not how usually the reading of the words “lo yatza” which… he’s still caught. Say, why here can one more sustain that it should mean here? Because you look here at the context. I told you that you should lengthen, you should do all kinds, speak about the Almighty all kinds of things. If he comes to answer all these things, and he knows, also wouldn’t have needed to say “lo yatza”. He said, it would have made more sense that it should say in the language of the Mishnah that it should say “since he said these three he fulfilled his obligation,” not “lo yatza”. It’s not… It doesn’t fit so well that explanation in the language of the Rabbi.

Speaker 1:

He can answer that it’s not there. He wants you yes, he is excited for the “anyone who increases,” and it’s very important. He doesn’t want to say that it’s not. He wants to say that when you are increasing, you should remember that the increasing is not good…

Speaker 2:

Indeed, what happens if one didn’t say the three things, but he did lengthen, and he is praiseworthy, but he is like a pious fool who didn’t guard any prohibitions, because he is a great servant of Hashem, and he does all mitzvot and all stringencies.

Speaker 1:

Okay, let’s go further.

Law 6 — In Every Generation a Person Must Show Himself

Speaker 1:

This is the holy Rambam, law 6.

In every generation, this is the next Mishnah by the way, okay, yes, not first, Chaim, the next Mishnah after Rabban Gamliel. Interesting, if I can understand the order of the Mishnayot and the order of the Rambam. Okay. In every generation a person must show himself, I see in all versions it’s l’harot et atzmo (to show himself) of the Rambam, it’s very different from lirot et atzmo (to see himself). Lirot et atzmo is something a feeling like you think. It could be that the Rambam understood, it could be that the Rambam had a version l’harot, it could be that by the Rambam he understood that lirot means l’harot, he simply made it clear.

Speaker 2:

No, therefore, the next, you know, there are many words that have many things. Ah, one learned so, that according to the Rambam also when one says lirot that means. It’s very clear that lirot means something internal.

Speaker 1:

Because in the text of the Haggadah, the Rambam doesn’t bring the entire text, it’s “show us in our affliction and in our building and in the building of our children’s children.” On that piece?

Speaker 2:

No, it’s not on that. No, so in our Haggadah it’s a bit mixed. You’ll soon see the Rambam’s Haggadah. In our Haggadah, let’s try to see as I remember. Let’s learn the Rambam.

Speaker 1:

In Every Generation – The Concept of “As If” and the Sources in Mishnah, Gemara and Haggadah

The Rambam’s Language: “As If He Himself Went Out Now”

Okay. To show himself as if he himself went out now, also another interesting thing, as if he just now jumped out of Egypt. Okay. As it says, ah, it’s quite simple, according to the Rambam one understands why the emphasis is on “in every generation,” even though it’s now several hundred years or several thousand years after the Exodus from Egypt, ahi, it’s always a beautiful principle. Okay. As it says “and us He took out from there”, the “us” doesn’t only refer to the generation of the Exodus from Egypt, but it says that it’s a commandment for all generations, so it must always be “us He took out from there”. So the Rambam says here a beautiful thing, “and concerning this matter the Holy One Blessed Be He commanded in the Torah. You were a slave.” It says in the Torah, and you shall remember that you were a slave. What’s the connection? What comes right after and before?

Speaker 2:

First, the Rambam is very happy to say the verses. As if you yourself were a slave. And you shall remember that you were a slave, you should remember that you yourself… Again, when you send your slave free, because… So the Rambam would have seen where this comes from. Simply, “and you shall remember that you were a slave,” he inserts into this the word “as if you were a slave,” right? This is very similar to what he did earlier. It says “and us He took out from there,” the Rambam said, the simple meaning isn’t true, but rather “as if us He took out from there,” right? So when it says in the verse, one can simply learn that it’s speaking of the first generation that actually went out, but we say the verse “as if,” therefore one must act “as if.” It’s very interesting. What’s the idea?

Speaker 1:

Ah, you mean in the Haggadah he doesn’t bring it out, because there he says why you actually went out, because the text of the verse… No, no, not in the text of the Haggadah. I mean the source of the Rambam, where he took it from in the Mishnah and in other places. We’ll see what’s going on here. There are amazing Rabinovitz cards that bring beautiful proofs.

Speaker 2:

Ah, this is regarding Shabbat. This is in the Ten Commandments, I think. Regarding Shabbat, yes. In the Ten Commandments, yes. The point isn’t… But the point isn’t regarding… Again, this is just a precise reading that it says the word “that you were a slave.” Who is the “you were”? There the Torah says in context that you should have mercy on a slave, because you yourself were once a slave. Very good. Nu? What’s the problem?

Speaker 1:

Ah, I would understand more that a person can use the imagination as if he is and that’s what the Rambam. Again, this is the precise reading, right? This is the precise reading. “As if” doesn’t have… “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt”, this is the precise reading. True?

So, but there’s still something. Simply that every Shabbat must be this “as if”? Not every Shabbat. Again, the Rambam is explaining what is the meaning of remembering the Exodus from Egypt, of remembering “as if he.” I don’t know why he brings this, because this is what the Rambam himself brought.

Analysis of the Sources: Mishnah, Gemara and Haggadah

The Mishnah and the Verse “Because of This God Did for Me”

Speaker 1:

What do the ancient sources say? Let’s first see what the source is, perhaps it will help us. The Mishnah says “in every generation a person is obligated to see himself”, and Rava says “Rava said one must say ‘and us He took out from there’”. Look at the verse “and us He took out from there”. Also, and must see. He says that it appears that the Rambam understood that the “and us He took out from there” is… And the Mishnah doesn’t see it that way.

And what does the Haggadah say? Eliyahu, should you take permission from us? “Because of this God did for me”. I don’t know, what does the Haggadah say? When you say “as if,” do you have a Haggadah? You don’t. What do you mean what does the Haggadah say? What is the meaning of what the Haggadah says? What does our text of the Haggadah say? “In every generation a person is obligated to see himself as if he went out of Egypt, as it says…”

Bring a Haggadah that will imagine. There are Haggadot in the world. Because of this God did for me when I went out of Egypt. How do we say it in our text of the Haggadah? But we say further “Not only our ancestors did the Holy One Blessed Be He redeem, but us too He redeemed with them, as it says ‘and us He took out from there’”. Ah, both. In our text of the Haggadah both expressions appear. We have “because of this God did for me”, the “for me,” and we have “and us”.

Rava’s Statement in the Gemara

Speaker 1:

So basically, in our Haggadah, and perhaps also in our version in the Mishnah, it says that there must be the precise reading “for me,” because it says “because of this God did for me”, the precise reading is apparently from the word “for me.” And right after it says “Not only our ancestors did the Holy One Blessed Be He redeem, but us too He redeemed with them, as it says ‘and us He took out from there’”. One must answer why we say the second verse. This is in our Haggadah, and this comes from the Gemara. Rava said, do you have a Gemara? One must take a Gemara Pesachim. In the Gemara on the Mishnah it says, yes? In the Gemara, is there a Gemara? In the Gemara it says in Tractate Pesachim, one must bring a righteous Gemara, or a computer that brings the Gemara immediately. Nu? Okay.

I’ll remember this. Something entered my head. The three mitzvot, the general principle is like this, he prints the Mishnah and he copies it in with how it’s brought in the Mishnah. And the Gemara is… The Gemara has blessings about… That it will be… Rava said, “because of this God did for me when I went out of Egypt”. Rava said… ah, no. Rava said, “one must say ‘and us He took out from there’”. Do you see that? Right the first piece after the Mishnah. I didn’t see it. Ah, already. Until here. What is the simple meaning of this piece of Rava? I’ll understand.

The Rashbam’s Explanation

Speaker 1:

So the Rashbam says that Rava says this verse, “and us He took out from there”, to show himself as if he went out.

So, in this verse it fits better? No, no, according to how the Rambam learns.

Different Versions in the Mishnah

Speaker 1:

The Mishnah, just to be clear, it’s not clear that the Mishnah brings a verse here. In the Haggadah it brings. There are versions in the Mishnah, and in other places in the Mishnah it doesn’t bring any verse. That’s number one.

Number two, yes, there are in some manuscripts and so on it doesn’t say the year, it just says a person is obligated to see himself. Now, or to see himself, this is perhaps the Rambam’s version. Okay.

Understanding Rava’s Statement

Speaker 1:

Now, but if it doesn’t say this in the Mishnah, then apparently what Rava is saying is, that the way how one fulfills to see himself is through saying this verse. Apparently, apparently this is the simple meaning, apparently this is simply the simple meaning. That Rava says, one must say “and us He took out from there”. That means, what does to see himself mean? He says, one doesn’t say that God took out the grandfathers from Egypt, he says He took us out. Ah, it’s not us? Okay, the Gemara doesn’t explain what the simple meaning is. Ah, this is to see himself, as if.

But if it does say yes in the Haggadah, if yes the version is that the Mishnah’s language already includes the verse, one must understand Rava. It appears that this isn’t, that this is the answer.

The Rambam’s Method in Combining the Sources

Speaker 1:

Or you can go that one brings, the Rambam understood a bit differently. The Rambam either didn’t understand, or he put it together himself, he put together that the verse is the source of the Mishnah. It says “and us He took out from there”, so it implies that one must make “us.” Ey, it’s not “us,” it is yes “us.”

Discussion: Why “And Us” and Not “Because of This God Did for Me”?

Speaker 2:

Why doesn’t it say “because of this God did for me”?

Speaker 1:

This is a second version found in the verse. I always thought, why should one use singular language or plural language? “For me” or “us”? I don’t know.

By the way, I must tell you, I stand with all these interpretations, I don’t understand them. I don’t understand any of the interpretations, with all due respect. All the verses… One speaks of the generation of now.

Speaker 2:

Yes, what do you want from my life now?

Speaker 1:

Okay, but it’s understood that the Torah is for all generations. So how can it be? It’s as if… Do you grasp the heresy of the Gemara? It’s not as if, because it’s if He hadn’t taken out we would actually have been. But what are we coming not because if He took out.

Digression: The Concept of “If He Hadn’t Taken Out”

Speaker 2:

The if He took out is you invented, not you, but a gentile. I don’t know about it yet. Did you see in the Ram the if? Also the if is nonsense. If He took out… Something that happened to your grandfather happened to you?

Speaker 1:

Nu nu, ask yourself in the commentators, and you’ll see the alternative history. Nu, if not, there would have been Babylon, there would have been new. I don’t know what would have been new.

The precise reading of “as if” that you present is an interesting precise reading, because it actually speaks of those people.

So if you want to bring it down to your plain meaning, you can say that you must say it with a slant so that it should be that as if it shouldn’t sound as if something an old miracle, but one should actually feel the miracle. It shouldn’t be telling some old story, but it should be in a manner with enthusiasm like a person was saved.

A Chassidic Interpretation of “As If”

Speaker 1:

But this is a Chassidic interpretation. I believe that the Mishnah means to speak of Chassidut.

Speaker 2:

Why Chassidut?

Speaker 1:

Because you say it with flavor. It’s not enough that you say Pesach, matzah and maror, because our grandfathers had this and that miracle, but it should be in a manner of thanksgiving, actually like you… How do you say it in Yiddish?

Back to the Sources: Where Does “If He Hadn’t Taken Out” Appear?

Speaker 1:

In short, the Mishnah is schmaltz, and in this piece if He hadn’t taken out it appears by us at we were slaves, not at this. It’s very interesting, how does it even come in there? Because we say there the verse and us He took out from there, right?

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

Right?

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

What yes?

Speaker 2:

Because we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt and God took us out from there with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, and if…

Speaker 1:

No.

Speaker 2:

…took us out, us.

Speaker 1:

Took us out is also a language of us.

Speaker 2:

Not exactly. In short, I don’t know why us…

Speaker 1:

It’s not us and me, but us. Like and us He took out from there.

The Verse from Deuteronomy – Answer to the Wise Son

Speaker 2:

I hear. This is that verse, but… because… just to be clear, it does yes make sense, because the verse that the Rav brings, this is the verse of the wise son, right? “And when your son asks you tomorrow saying what are the testimonies and the statutes… and you shall say to your son we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt and God took us out of Egypt… and God gave signs and wonders… and us He took out from there”.

So our Haggadah makes a paraphrase of this. It’s not the language of the verse, but it’s built on this verse. So based on this he makes such an interpretation, he says over this interpretation of who, Eli? Okay.

The Concept of “Dayenu” – An “If-ish Economy”

Speaker 1:

Nu nu. You know what, in Pesach commandments there are so many things that are actually attention to give if we would have entered, the whole if He had taken us out of Egypt and not made judgments, the whole Dayenu is if if. As if one is fulfilling to be the if. As if if to if itself? If, yes, they say if it wouldn’t have been, if and if here and if there. You understand, Maggid is Maggid. We have a Maggid, we are in Egypt, because if we wouldn’t have been… It’s an if-ish economy, and one thinks so, if it would have been so it can be.

Speaker 2:

If if if, here. If is permission to listen. It speaks of you. This is already free men’s.

The Rambam’s Addition: “Now” – Now, Fresh

Speaker 1:

Anyways, the Rambam also says the word “as if he went out now”. It’s interesting, he adds the word “now”. Not that I went out last year, this is the novelty. As if every year one should fresh. Ah, perhaps by the Rambam this answered my precise reading. But I ask you, how can one derive this precisely from the verse, which apparently speaks of that generation? But even that generation wasn’t “now”. Rather what, one must say “now”. How is the derivation from the verse? Yes. The other one went out,

The Verse “And You Shall Remember That You Were a Slave” and the Rambam’s Composition of the Seder Night

The Precise Reading in the Word “Now”

Speaker 1: It’s interesting, he adds the word “now”. Not that I went out last year? This is a novelty. It’s yes, as if every year one should fresh. In other words, perhaps by the Rambam one answers this precise reading. But so, I ask you, how can one say this on the verse? It speaks of that generation. But even that generation wasn’t “now”. Necessarily one must say “now”. How is the precise reading in the verse?

Speaker 2: How do you say? How does the precise reading stand in the verse “now”?

Speaker 1: I don’t know. But one can hear it, because once the person does Pesach, matzah and maror, he has said that he’s now reenacting. Yes, I feel now… When one does maror one says, one feels a bad taste. The two things are perhaps connected. You put in the whole emphasis.

I think it has more to do with what I said, that here one doesn’t need any actions. Here one needs a meal, and one must say as if, and not the blessing in vain, the Hallel. What do you say in Hallel? That means that the emphasis is the thing that it’s one day that he was impure after the calf, and afterwards he became close to God blessed be He.

The Verse “And You Shall Remember That You Were a Slave” – The Rambam’s Own Composition

Speaker 1: It’s interesting, the verse of “remember that you were a slave” it appears that the Rambam put together himself. I don’t see that anyone has a source for this. It’s a great novelty, because he notes in the back, someone asks that it never says on any commandment of the Exodus from Egypt over “remember”. It always says for Shabbat, on other commandments it says, on charity. It never says on Pesach specifically the verse “remember that you were a slave in Egypt”. What’s the problem with this? Because one can say, “remember that you were a slave in Egypt”, therefore you should keep Shabbat, therefore you should help your slave.

But the Rambam derives here precisely the concept of “as if”. The thing that a person can imagine himself “as if”. Right. And perhaps, I want to know if he brings a source for this Rambam.

Speaker 2: You look right in sources and references, he brings a source from the Sages for bringing in here the “remember”.

Speaker 1: Because this is very interesting, this makes sense that the Rambam loved this verse. Because the verse said the simple meaning that one should remember literally, because he says that one should have mercy for the poor person, because remember. Yes. Slave, my opinions, it’s implied that it’s not said like remember, and what it is a certain person. But, I when someone see that you are also in his slave.

Speaker 2: Exactly, if not isn’t a slave now a good day, it should go go home.

Speaker 1: No, you are still a slave now, last night he was. Right?

Speaker 2: Yes. A bit of a derivation.

Speaker 1: Ah. So it is also a derivation, because here one certainly speaks in the generations. Is very good. So in other words, therefore therefore such, the verse going out from there is an interpretation. But because here what is the explicit in the Torah is remember, one speaks already not…

Speaker 2: Okay, also the idea. Explicit in the Torah and in general, I don’t have so much greater when needed. Types so, right?

Speaker 1: Okay, listen, you see clearly that the Torah wants that one should constantly think about your slavery. Right so, I say? Something is such a thing. A grasp of the simple meaning here, that it’s actually the simple simple meaning that one must remember that and one was slaves so I can think.

Why “Slavery of Egypt” and Not Just “Exodus from Egypt”?

Speaker 1: Why also did the Rambam insert would one slavery of Egypt? Not just, all going out of Egypt, with the languages in them.

Speaker 2: Ah, because wants it to live in Egypt the Rambam also lived.

Speaker 1: The Rambam is what easy so. One doesn’t speak of Egypt, one speaks of slavery of Egypt. Perhaps because of the…

Speaker 2: No, I think you’re right. This is already easier for a person. I with imagine that he would have been able to be himself in a Torah, not the what not of himself.

Speaker 1: No, no, take slavery of Egypt. It because of the Rambam.

Speaker 2: Okay. Very good.

Connection to the Amora Who Said to His Slave

English Translation

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s continue. First, regarding this, did that Amora that you brought yesterday from the Gemara say it to his slave, because with this the fulfillment of the designation is much easier. It’s still a matter of “shove te’achel vesavata” (you shall eat and be satisfied). That’s the Rambam, yes, and you said it well. Yes, one of them.

Halacha 7 – The Way of Freedom, Reclining, and Four Cups

The Rambam’s Organization of the Seder Night

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s continue further. But wait a minute, do you think it’s difficult to say that this is connected with Pesach, matzah, and maror, because with Pesach, matzah, and maror one acts out a concept?

Speaker 2: No, no, no. I think so. I think so. I think so. The Pesach comes later, forget about that.

Speaker 1: Therefore, because I saw them say, because here he finished the laws of the Haggadah, the Rambam finished in Halacha 5. He said “these things are called the Haggadah.” Now we’re not talking about the Haggadah, now we’re talking about something else. And what he says is in the next halacha. How does one conduct the Seder night? There are several things. One, “a person must eat and drink on this night”, as you mean, “in the manner of freedom”. Through the manner of freedom he knows that he is now redeemed, he is now a free person. Another thing… okay, not exactly. The second thing is that one drinks cups, that there was a second time…

Educating Children – A Question

Speaker 1: But what is this education? I saw Rabbi Yechiel Meir, they struggled greatly with this matter of educating children. One says, because what is a minor, for example, who cannot eat the hard matzah? A one-year-old baby, he can’t eat bread, he can’t eat any matzah. The Rambam says one is obligated to give matzah. How does one do it? What is your problem?

Speaker 2: One should soak it, because one should give him a different type of matzah.

Speaker 1: Exactly. He argued that one must buy… that one is obligated to buy. So Rabbi Yechiel Meir came up exactly with your innovation, that it’s an obligation. And he went to Shmuel Auerbach and said that your innovation makes no sense.

Speaker 2: Okay. He doesn’t eat perforated matzot.

Speaker 1: No, I saw on the websites, and you know I wonder about your innovation. And the… because one will get involved there.

Even a Pauper Who Lives on Charity – Four Cups

Speaker 1: You know what, you can write it, even a pauper who lives on charity should not have less than four cups of wine. This means that even the pauper must see himself as if he went out, that’s the point. But it’s only a measure. But it could also be that it has to do with “you shall remember that you were a slave,” you remember that you were a slave, you should give charity, make sure that the pauper has.

Speaker 2: I hear. It’s certain that the Rambam would certainly have been happy with what you’re saying, you mean the advice.

Speaker 1: So, the Rambam included, it’s very interesting, this doesn’t appear in the Mishnah. One must learn this chapter of Arvei Pesachim, but the Rambam, the Rambam himself apparently organized it, that there is the story of the Exodus from Egypt, there is the way of freedom, and rabbinic enactments. Two rabbinic commandments. In this chapter essentially, if I want to make a summary, there is one Torah commandment of telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt, and several rabbinic commandments. The first rabbinic commandment is reclining, the second is the four cups, and then we’ll see charoset and maror. So, four rabbinic commandments. And… yes, it’s interesting.

The Measure of the Cups

Speaker 1: What is the measure of the cups? He says, “and the measure of each cup is a quarter [log]”.

The Law of the Pauper – Connection to “You Shall Remember That You Were a Slave”

Speaker 2: The pauper, I know, what is the law for the pauper, for the… for the charity collectors?

Speaker 1: There is an obligation like “you shall remember that you were a slave,” that even the poorest of Israel… ah, he goes back to the four cups. One minute, he goes back to the laws of reclining. Right? “From the laws of reclining.” Okay.

If one does this with the pauper, one helps him, it’s even easier for him the way of freedom, because he is truly poor, he is a pauper, he didn’t have, and now they helped him, they brought him wine, he sees himself… okay.

Halacha 8 – Laws of Reclining

Even the Poorest of Israel – The Innovation of Freedom

Speaker 1: Okay, so let’s go learn the laws of reclining. “A woman, even the poorest of Israel…” That even… I mean that the innovation is even the poorest of Israel. Apparently this expresses the freedom, right? Freedom doesn’t mean only rich. Rich is something else. Just as the Rambam says in other places, when a person eats only for himself, it doesn’t mean…

Speaker 2: No. I told you that the Rambam would have been happy with what you’re saying, but I’m not talking about that now. I’m saying that this is a law regarding the Jew, and the… all people went out from Egypt, and in this they are free people, not because they are wealthy. Even if you are wealthy, you still need to eat in the manner of freedom. Does a wealthy person eat four cups every day? That’s no innovation. An innovation is that a poor person eats four cups. Eh, he doesn’t have? The charity goes. Every Satmar Hasid learns. Because the charity… why does the charity distribute? Because a Jew must have four cups for Pesach. It’s not a luxury. Luxury the charity doesn’t distribute.

And in this one sees the freedom of a Jew is that he is obligated to drink four cups. He can’t get out of it. On the contrary, the obligation is the aspect of servitude, not the aspect of freedom. The reclining is the freedom, the obligation to drink is the servitude. Well then. Okay.

Which Commandments Does the Verse “Remember That You Were a Slave” Apply To?

Speaker 1: But it’s interesting, if the verse remembering the Exodus from Egypt applies to Shabbat and to other commandments, which other commandments does it apply to? It seems the commandment of charity, no? The verse says “because you were a slave in the land of Egypt,” “therefore I command you to do this thing.” The Ramban says so, that one sees in the Torah a thing that it’s not imagination that a person should… not that it’s not imagination, that one must remember that you are this. Not that it doesn’t make sense. The reasoning of Shabbat that the verse says is not a commandment of reciting the Exodus from Egypt. The verse wants to arouse you that you should take care of your pauper, because you were a pauper. It’s not absolute that the Torah means that you should feel for your pauper, because you should know what it feels like to be a pauper. How do I know? I wasn’t there, my grandfather was. But one sees that a person can use imagination, and a person can… they add using imagination, and you put that in. One sees that to see oneself as if he went out. I’m not disputing the imagination, but the Ramban doesn’t say the word imagination here.

The Distinction Between “Lir’ot” and “Lehar’ot”

Speaker 2: Lir’ot atzmo (to see oneself) is imagination, lehar’ot (to show) is not imagination, it’s more… showing something. Okay. Mmmmm.

The Way of Freedom – Reclining and Four Cups (Continued)

Children and Four Cups – Dispute Between Rambam and Tosafot

Speaker 1: One sees that lehar’ot is almost fulfilling. I’m not disputing the imagination, but the Rambam says the word imagination itself. Lir’ot atzmo is imagination, lehar’ot is not imagination, it’s more showing something, displaying something.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker 1: Ah, the Gemara says, these four cups require that one taste in them a quarter [log], both men and women and children. The Rambam says only… are you talking? The Gemara says, the Rabbis taught, these four cups, in Kiddushin 8b, require that one taste in them a quarter [log], both men and women and children. The Rambam says only both men and women, he leaves out the children. What’s the meaning? Does he argue with the Gemara? What is he doing here?

Speaker 2: No, where did you find that this is a Gemara?

Speaker 1: Kiddushin 8b, but he brings it, but he says it this way, and he learns it, and he continues.

Speaker 2: Hello?

Speaker 1: The Rambam says a word, so?

The Gemara in Pesachim – Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

Speaker 1: Afterwards the Gemara says, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, women are obligated in these four cups because they too were in that miracle.

Ah, there is one who learns that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi argues with the first Tanna. The first Tanna says both men and women and children. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says only women are obligated because they too were in that miracle, but not children. Education is not here.

The Gur Aryeh and Tosafot

Speaker 2: The Gur Aryeh himself actually brings even children, meaning that they don’t need, four cups and wine, it says in Tosafot. There is a dispute between the Rambam and Tosafot. So what? So for children, do you give the children four cups of wine? Yes, that’s how it’s cited.

Speaker 1: Yes, but you understand what I mean to say. And rabbis should catch conversations, it’s not proper conduct. Well well, be real, but no one has anything from the feeling of the cups, and no one has any respect for them. Because people don’t like wine, they have no respect for it. True, it’s not true. Simply people are nullified in their opinion, they’re not normal people.

The Rambam’s Approach – Dispute Between Rabbi Yehuda and the First Tanna

Speaker 1: Yes, but I’m saying it’s a dispute between the Rambam and Tosafot. And the Rambam understood that it’s a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the first Tanna. Because Rabbi Yehuda says “what benefit is there for children in wine?” But regarding simply drinking, or regarding the four cups? He said, I need to know whether he’s talking about the four cups or he’s talking about wine. But Rabbi Yehuda says “what benefit is there for children in wine? Rather, one distributes to them roasted grain and nuts on Pesach eve so that they don’t sleep and will ask”.

The Rashbam and the Lemateh Eliezer

So the Rashbam says “and they are not exempt from the commandments,” “what benefit is there for children in wine?” Are they exempt from the commandments, so automatically… why? When he says “what benefit,” that children can’t, it’s difficult for children, it’s no pleasure for children, but roasted grain and nuts is appropriate for them. But… because “rather, one distributes to them roasted grain and nuts”, what kind of answer is that? If they are exempt from the commandments, are they also exempt from the commandment of roasted grain and nuts?

He means to say, ah, the standard answer is, “Lemateh Eliezer” means to say so, they don’t like it, wine is not appropriate for them. But what then? He says, it’s a commandment is a commandment, they are not obligated in commandments. But what then? One wants to educate them, one wants to educate them, they should be educated according to their way with roasted grain and nuts. Well well.

So they explain to us that it’s a dispute, and the Rambam ruled like Rabbi Yehuda, and the other righteous ones ruled like the first Tanna. Aha, that’s the point here. And the question is whether you’re talking from the side of education, or you’re talking from the side of…

Speaker 2: Okay, let’s continue. In a little bit I’m going to go to sleep. Okay, I’ll try. Okay. Mmm… but I’m trying to finish the four questions.

Speaker 1: The Gemara says that the Rambam learned differently than Tosafot, and he rules that the children are exempt. They have a dispute about how they ruled. They both learned the same thing, the question is only what became the ruling. Okay, that makes sense. One must go in, perhaps one should learn the Gemara differently too. Okay.

The Maharsha – Why Not Wine for Children?

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s… and even a pauper… I understand that the matter with the child is something else, because we already learned that one shouldn’t, the child shouldn’t fall asleep. So the Maharsha says, why would you give him wine? He’ll immediately fall asleep from the wine. Rather what? But on the contrary, give things that will keep him up. That means, the adults can handle wine, they won’t immediately fall asleep. On the contrary, it’s to make joyful. The child will fall asleep on you, you don’t give him. So you can clarify that he should stay up.

So the question is, perhaps one did give wine to children in those times? Just as Rav Nachman said, “my stories are to awaken, not to put to sleep.” Here… I don’t know. I don’t know. Yes, we’ll continue.

Halacha 8 – Even the Poorest of Israel Should Not Eat Until He Reclines

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, “even the poorest of Israel…” Perhaps he wants to say even the greatest pauper among Jews, yes, the poorest of Israel, the very poorest, “should not eat until he reclines”. Okay, he goes back to reclining. Even a poor person needs reclining. It doesn’t say here that we need to provide reclining. Reclining doesn’t need a couch or something. One can lean on the floor, one can lean on the bench, and so on. So we don’t need to.

The Innovation of Reclining for a Pauper

The innovation is only that… what is the innovation actually? I asked you this earlier, I never understood this. What does “should not eat” mean? Will I give him a scolding? But what then? Why does one learn from reclining that he is a poor person? Because he can say to himself, “is this freedom to me?” It doesn’t look like freedom at all. The freedom is only when it looks like that, this is not “as if.” The wealth is not “as if,” the wealth is actually. That’s what he says. Even when it doesn’t look like that, it’s truly an act of freedom, the reclining is a commandment.

Speaker 2: The child would be a better explanation. Okay. One can think more. Tosafot actually says, do you mean to say that even he fulfills reclining without having a nice bed and four cups? I don’t know, it’s weird. Okay.

A Woman and Reclining – Nullified to Her Husband

Speaker 1: A woman, one says she needs reclining, one says she doesn’t need it. But an important woman does need it, like our women who are important. Okay. Four cups every woman must have with importance. Yes. I don’t know what this is, I don’t know exactly. Rabbi Ben Zion Abba Shaul is a servant of Rabbi Ezra Attia. Yes, the wife does reclining, she is an important woman? No, the rabbi already said that one doesn’t become. Okay, anyways, okay, let’s continue.

Digression: Wine and Grape Juice for Four Cups

Speaker 2: Four cups she also drinks, she also drinks grape juice, in practice. Well, Rabbi Ben Zion Abba Shaul, Rabbi Ben Zion Abba Shaul is a servant of Rabbi Ezra Attia, he says that she too needs reclining. I mean that for everyone to drink four cups of wine can be harmful, like the main law, but a quarter wine and three quarters water, or grape juice, whatever. Understand?

I can’t drink wine at all, I simply make Purim of humanity. I hold that drinking grape juice for kiddush or for the four cups is worse than Reform. What are you saying, I make kiddush for kiddush. It’s like lighting a menorah with electricity. Hello? That’s not what the Almighty meant in the commandment of the Torah.

Ah, you know, I once saw someone say, if one wears a wig to cover the hair, one can actually drink grape juice also for kiddush. Understand? It’s the same idea, it makes no sense at all, but perhaps one fulfills in this matter. Okay, I don’t know.

Speaker 1: It’s more like “and you shall seek, the Torah of wine shall not be forgotten.” I can’t take any wine. You can drink light wine. I bought a bunch of cans of the Bartenura, you know the Bartenura doesn’t have any… Bartenura doesn’t have Torah of wine. At least, yes. I didn’t buy to drink at Havdalah, whatever. At kiddush I can drink wine, but at Havdalah I don’t have, I bought real wine, a crazy person. Let him drink that, it’s quite certain that it has the law of wine, it’s five percent, why shouldn’t it have the law of wine? Quite certain that it’s wine. I don’t drink even a sip of it, I’ll have to drink two or three bottles.

Speaker 2: You know what I tell you? It’s good, it’s good, it’s good.

Speaker 1: Okay, okay.

Back to an Important Woman – The Rabbeinu Manoach’s Explanation

Speaker 1: A woman meaning, okay, and one who is important needs an eruv. Because women, no, so so so she is nullified to her husband, that’s how I mean the explanation. She is nullified to her husband. A woman doesn’t have freedom, a woman doesn’t have freedom, a woman doesn’t have freedom.

But an important woman does have freedom. You see that long hair is also one of the ways of freedom. Right? What is the reason? Even if it’s the commandment between man and his fellow, it’s more important. A slave before his master or a student before his teacher? Which is a student before his teacher? Therefore this is also not a way of freedom, it’s also not a way of chutzpah. It’s also not a way of freedom, that doesn’t mean freedom. You ask a question, a student before his teacher.

Look in the Rabbeinu Manoach, he says it so well. Yes, you know, one minute, what do I need to see? What is an important woman? An important woman means a woman who is not… the Rabbeinu Manoach says that he means a widow, a divorcée, a widow, something like that… an independent woman. Once there were no independent women. There was a wealthy person, and there was a pauper, and there was an orphan.

And likewise a woman who is important before Hashem, a God-fearing woman, daughter of the great ones of the generation, included in her own praises, and all similar cases, if she doesn’t have a reality…

If there is such a thing. If there is. Then it’s a different interpretation, that it applies to her having work so she can do her… That’s a more reasonable interpretation.

The Rabbeinu Menuach’s Question – Eved Bifnei Rabo

He asks the question, what does the Torah say that a servant… eved shemeshe is exempt from mitzvos, what does that mean? A Hebrew servant? Yes, he’s exempt because he’s busy now. But he asks the question, what is a servant? He says that morah rabo is more… He says this, the Rabbeinu Menuach, he struggles with our problem. He says that an eved bifnei rabo, we learn a bit further, yes, eved bifnei rabo, sometimes one must stand before one’s master, one must yes, but a talmid etzel rabo not. Yes, an eved doesn’t go without permission. That is, a father, a son has as much respect for his father as a servant, a student for his teacher.

Or as the student said, yes, such Jews are close with their father and don’t need to be so distant. But yes, you know what I mean? What does the… what is the sefer? He says why does a child need to pray for the father and not for the minister? Yes, it would be great arrogance that you don’t pray for the minister and you pray for the father.

Eved Bifnei Rabo / Talmid Bifnei Rabo

Yes, eved bifnei rabo. When are we talking about here? When are we talking here about a rebbe? One must yes, but talmid bifnei rabo not.

Yes, eved bifnei rabo is not like a father. A son doesn’t have as much respect for his father as a servant-student for his teacher. And consequently, or as the sefer says, yes, that Jews are close with the father and don’t need to be so distanced.

But, yes, you know what I mean? Who is the sefer? He says why does a child say “du” (you informal) to the father, not “ihr” (you formal). Yes, it’s minhag Ashkenaz, the custom of our grandfathers was that one says “du” to the father, one doesn’t say “ihr” to the father. There are people who conduct themselves this way. But, well, the sefer says that it’s precise in Yaakov Avinu. Yaakov Avinu said, Eisav said “kum avi,” and Yaakov said “Yaakov,” he said it so directly. They are close with the father, they aren’t distant with our fathers. He says this in the sefer.

It could be because of this, yes, a father, I can be a friend with my father, but it perhaps doesn’t even contradict. A father has pleasure when he sees me recline. Exactly, a father isn’t, the honor, he doesn’t long for my honor. On the contrary, he enjoys it.

But a student is different. Is there a rebbe who gives permission? Perhaps this is a matter of whether the rebbe should give permission or not. By the Chassidim for example, only Rebbe Shlomo, Rebbe Shlomo, Rebbe Shlomo… By the great rebbes, the people don’t make hesebah, only the one who wanted to. Then he’s the rebbe of the rebbes. The rebbe doesn’t need to be mochel on his honor for him. But generally speaking, the student needs hesebah.

In short, he says that morah rabo pushes aside the matter of hesebah. It’s interesting. Morah rabo kemorah shamayim, is there hesebah? Morah rabo kemorah shamayim. You can understand, but one needs to go into the precise definitions of morah rabo.

But, in short, servants also weren’t standing regarding the four cups. They aren’t obligated in the four cups, and the four cups weren’t standing achal al hakosos. All these permissions are only the permissions of the four cups, not for the four cups. Consequently one can say an eved is included in women. Yes, it could be perhaps, it could be that way too. It can’t be that the servant he goes to recline, he’ll feel comfortable, because it’s not the way of servitude anyway. Perhaps that’s the interpretation.

Discussion: Four Cups – D’oraisa or D’rabbanan?

Speaker 1: Could be?

Speaker 2: You see here “chayav adam liros,” “chayav balaylah hazeh arba kosos shel yayin,” they say that regarding charoses he says it’s a mitzvah miderabbanan, and here he doesn’t say mitzvah miderabbanan. Ah, charoses is a mitzvah midivrei sofrim. But he doesn’t say that the act of the four cups is derabbanan.

Speaker 1: How?

Speaker 2: “Chayav balaylah hazeh arba kosos shel yayin,” but he doesn’t say “chayav midivrei sofrim,” that he won’t say that it’s regarding charoses.

Speaker 1: Perhaps it’s a bit d’oraisa, because this is “ke’ilu hu yatza.”

Speaker 2: Certainly not. Who’s talking about that? Tzitz Eliezer, Mishnas Yaavetz.

The thing is that he says in the name of “biklal hamitzvah liros es atzmo ke’ilu yatza miMitzrayim.” The Rambam doesn’t hold that this “liros es atzmo” is d’oraisa. He learns it out from a verse, but he doesn’t say it’s a mitzvah d’oraisa. Perhaps it’s a law in the story of yetzias Mitzrayim.

Speaker 1: He says it’s d’oraisa “chayav adam liros es atzmo,” even if he learns it out from a verse.

Speaker 2: I want to say that it’s such a law like ma’aseh lemelech nichnas, everything is a preparation for how to say the Haggadah. All the laws of how the story of yetzias Mitzrayim should go, how one should remember yetzias Mitzrayim. He doesn’t say there’s an extra mitzvah.

The Rambam doesn’t say, when he says how many mitzvos there are, he doesn’t say another mitzvah of “liros es atzmo ke’ilu yatza.”

Speaker 1: Perhaps it’s miderabbanan.

Speaker 2: I see that the Mishnas Eliezer tries to say that it’s d’oraisa.

The question could be that the Brisker Rav says, Reb Yitzchak Zev Halevi, that from the Torah one is obligated “liros es atzmo ke’ilu yatza.” But how one should do it practically, that’s a law that the rabbis should do it, through wine, through hesebah. So, okay, a Brisker Torah. So, the essential law is… So, not a law, so, like yours is a Torah that you love, and I don’t love, I love their daas Torah. No, like stomachs and all those things. But what I don’t love, and as you say that the Rambam doesn’t love poverty. So, it doesn’t fit with your… I don’t know.

A Poor Person and Four Cups / Charity for Mitzvos

Okay, even a poor person has importance, yes, a son must yes, a student not.

And he brings another question, in the laws of Chanukah the Rambam says “sho’el umochir kesuso,” that is, even if he wasn’t a good baal tzedakah who brought him that, why isn’t there that law here? Perhaps there is. He’s occupied because there they say it’s taken from here there through. Perhaps there is.

A Mishnas Yaavetz, he has many times good Torahs the Mishnas Yaavetz, generally, many times his things are very beautiful lomdus. He says that there’s a law that one doesn’t need to give charity for a poor person so he can fulfill mitzvos, one only needs to give for a poor person so he should have what to eat, one doesn’t need to give for a poor person so he can fulfill mitzvos. But here this is a meal, tonight’s meal is with wine and with all these things, so when you give him the meal it can enter into this. Perhaps this is the matter of derech cheirus, that indeed one must give him. He should eat a meal tonight like a ben chorin.

I mean that it’s a mitzvah, and what is the matter of cheirus? Yes, I don’t know. It has to do with the freedom, it has to do with the… The Maharam answered that when one gives the charity one doesn’t need to intend derech cheirus, not intend mitzvas tzedakah. Do you understand it that way? What does he say leshem mah? He says he gives him charity. I don’t know.

Rabbi Binyamin Aharon Frenkel has an Aruch HaShulchan, “umechayvin oso lilvosor limchor kesuso lishtuyei arba kosos miderabbanan.” Yes, for that they certainly gave pidyon shevuyim. Also if you’ll ask, he’ll bring grape juice.

And this is the month of matzah, and one catches him to be matzah. You don’t think any four cups, and one doesn’t buy any matzah. I don’t make any blessing on the four cups to us the rabbis try and the wise ones try to learn.

Halacha 8: Laws of Hesebah – Summary

Okay, wait for me, let’s learn a bit further. I want to finish the laws of hesebah and the eruv perhaps. Okay. One doesn’t need to. Okay.

In short, even a poor person needs hesebah. A woman doesn’t need to, except if she’s important. A son, a child or a servant need to. A student doesn’t need to, except if he has permission.

Hesebah on the Left – Not Right

How does one do hesebah? Not on the right. One hesebah.

The Gemara says that right because it could be a danger. Here the Rambam says that this is the way how hesebah comes. The Gemara says “shema yakdim kaneh leveshet.” Yes, but I mean that the language “einah hesebah” stands well. Do you understand what I’m saying? “Einah hesebah” is apparently the interpretation that this is how hesebah comes. The derech eretz of hesebah is this type of hesebah. Not that there’s a side danger that one must fear from around.

The Gemara says “mar’eh hesebah mahu?” This is a language of Gemara, “hesebah she’ein shmah hesebah.” “Velo od ela shema yakdim kaneh leveshet.” No, that’s the order. It’s not true because of that.

Speaker 1: Not because of “shema yakdim kaneh leveshet”?

Speaker 2: No, no. It’s because… I mean that the reason is because one can’t eat, one must eat with the right hand. If you lean on your left hand… Do you understand what I’m saying?

Speaker 1: No, it’s not a tasty matter.

Speaker 2: Exactly. Hesebah comes this way, do you understand what I’m saying? Yes. Then you can drink with the right hand. But not that it’s a…

Hesebah at the Table Like Ours

Okay, one must be careful about hesebah at the table like ours is hesebah. Most of us need hesebah to the right.

The Hagahos Maimoniyos brings Reb Avyah Kozh, one of the chachmei Lunel, that he was a ben chorin one of the mesubin, and on the contrary, sitting in our way is derech cheirus. But it’s a shitah yechidah. He doesn’t accept it. But there is such a thing, there is Reb Avyah. He says… Yes, I had to look into the Rambam, I only wanted to see the way of thinking. London is right.

And if one can, one brings a piece of couch, something, one tries to do it… A pillow on a couch one doesn’t even need to. And… Figure it out. But he… Okay. Who is he? Reb Sherki has a video how he demonstrates how derech cheirus, what means true hesebah derech cheirus. It’s in short, one must be very comfortable on the bench, no stories. And only when one is so, he had his hands so on the table, ah, calm. Okay, but what’s the problem?

When Does One Need Hesebah?

Lechatchilah now, what stands in the Rambam, “shelo harbeh tzrichin hesebah.” Ah, yes, one says. Okay. “Lechatchilah ein mesibin ela al achilas kezayis matzah ve’al shetiyat arba kosos halalu.” Do you understand too? Yes, one doesn’t need any… “Ve’elu hen shetzrichin hesebah: bish’as achilas kezayis matzah, uvishetiyat arba kosos halalu.” When does one do the hesebah? At the time of eating a kezayis matzah, and the four cups. The rest of it… “Ush’ar achilaso ushtiyaso, im heisev harei zeh meshubach.” This is the language of the Rambam, “im heisev harei zeh meshubach, ve’im lav eino tzarich.” If you did it, it’s good. If not, also, it doesn’t lack. I don’t know why it doesn’t lack. It’s a funny language.

Lechatchilah is so, lechatchilah is better yes. “Harei zeh meshubach,” like kol hamarbeh harei zeh meshubach. It’s better to eat the whole meal with hesebah. That’s how one should try to conduct oneself. Whoever has a good hesebah way, whoever has figured out how to do it, very good.

Halacha 9: Mixing the Four Cups

“Arba kosos halalu tzrichin limzog oson kedei shetiheye shetiyah arevah.” It must be tasty, it must be easy.

From here perhaps one sees that one can indeed use grape juice for this. Grape juice is not wine. One needs wine, but… Businesses that buy easy wine, cocktail for wine, four equal opinions. But grape juice is not wine. Well well. I don’t know what it is. Virtual wine. Well well.

There is, I saw, Uri wrote about this beauty on his website too. Ah, that it’s not wine. It’s against grape juice. I mean he’s right.

Halacha 9 (Continued) — Revi’is Pure Wine, Four Cups, Charoses, and Maror

Revi’is Pure Wine — The Measure of Wine Among the Four Cups

Speaker 1: A colleague of yours perhaps one sees that one can indeed use grape juice. Grape juice is not wine, one needs wine, easy, stories, one comes to easy wine – but grape juice is not wine.

Speaker 2: Well well. Don’t know what it is? Good wine.

Speaker 1: Well well. There is a… I saw… Uri wrote about this beauty on his website too. This is against… No, against grape juice, I mean he’s right. It makes it good wine, but it’s simple… I mean he’s right. It’s unnecessary, he can’t… He doesn’t bother here, but one must do funny things. Like, like one doesn’t hold by covering the hair, that’s a bother. Why must one buy a wig that is more, more than that, and be angry that one recognizes this? A question head in.

Speaker 2: Well well.

Speaker 1: This is part of the falsehood, do you understand? He can’t… He can’t afford a car, he buys her a big wheel that looks like a car. What do you think head in? Did he wonder at me a question?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: But we see the world with black like closest is itself ke’ilu. For all this is ke’ilu. No, grape juice is the seeing one has ke’ilu. But it’s not! Ke’ilu is when it does something, I don’t know.

Speaker 2: Yes. Okay. Mmmmm. Okay.

Speaker 1: That contains. Ummm… Velo yifchos be’arba’ason merevi’is yayin chai. What means when one adds, it’s simple that it will be much bigger than a revi’is. Because a revi’is definitely is a man.

Speaker 2: What is that?

Speaker 1: Or perhaps.

Speaker 2: Say.

Speaker 1: Must one be in each one, or all together?

Speaker 2: No, apparently in each one. One must be a revi’is pure wine.

Speaker 1: No. Each one. What do the people say who say each one here?

Speaker 2: But revi’is means, yes. With all four, so each one should have a quarter wine.

Speaker 1: Yes, that’s what comes out.

Earlier he said that each one of the four must be a revi’is, yes, shiur kol kos malei revi’is. Now he says that the whole should be a revi’is.

Speaker 2: No, revi’is is after the mixing.

Speaker 1: But before the mixing, some wine must be in the whole act. It’s not simple that all four, because between all four you drink a whole revi’is wine, right? But that wine mixed means like wine, the whole thing is called wine, must be a revi’is wine.

Why is the matter of this measure between the four? I don’t know, perhaps there’s an explainer how it comes out.

Speaker 2: No, it could be that this is simply a measure that it should be a quarter, up to a quarter is called mixed, and not too… Perhaps that’s what he means. A value, a value so it goes, a three… two thirds.

Speaker 1: Very good, it comes out… The Rambam speaks of a quarter, not two thirds, but three quarters. Comes out total one revi’is.

Speaker 2: He simply makes it easier for you.

Speaker 1: It’s not a law of a measure revi’is total. It’s a matter that he must mix in water, he says in chapter 8 verse 1.

Speaker 2: One revi’is total, and he can mix in.

Speaker 1: No, according to the opinion of the drinker, if the guest likes differently.

Speaker 2: The guest also has an opinion.

Speaker 1: I’m asking a mechutan.

Speaker 2: I don’t know, derech eretz perhaps yes.

Okay, very good.

If One Drank Four Cups Unmixed — Fulfilled Four Cups but Not Freedom

Speaker 1: Shatah arba kosos elu miyayin she’eino mazug, yatza yedei arba kosos, the mitzvah of four cups, aval lo yatza yedei cheirus. What does this mean? The Rambam reveals to us here for the first time that the four cups is not a law of freedom, but it’s an extra thing. It’s both.

Speaker 2: Earlier he said freedom.

Speaker 1: Lefikach, very good, but it doesn’t mean it’s one hundred percent, but there is. It could be the four cups without freedom, for example if one drinks it lo mazug, for that indeed he’s not yotzei basically. What means at all yotzei yedei arba kosos velo yatza yedei cheirus? I mean that it should be two mitzvos. The nafka minah is that yotzei yedei… I don’t know. Perhaps that he can now afterward drink more now one can drink one cup for freedom’s sake.

Speaker 2: No, no, let’s see.

Speaker 1: Shoteh arba’ah kosos, mezigah bifnei atzmah, yotzei yedei cheirus, velo yotzei yedei arba’ah kosos. Ah, the interpretation is, as it were, freedom means to enjoy with the wine. Four cups means that there’s a way how one should do it.

The Measure of Drinking Each Cup — Most of a Revi’is

Speaker 1: “And they pour for him each cup and recite the blessing over it, he also fulfills his obligation.” One doesn’t have to drink the entire cup. One doesn’t have to drink so much wine in the end. It’s a quarter of wine, and one doesn’t even have to drink the entire revi’is (quarter-log). Most of a revi’is. A revi’is is two-three ounces, according to the lenient opinions.

A Separate Blessing on Each Cup

Speaker 1: “Each and every cup of the four cups, one recites a separate blessing over it.” Yes. So what? “Over the first cup one recites the Kiddush of the day. Over the second cup one reads the Haggadah. Over the third cup one recites Birkas HaMazon (Grace After Meals). Over the fourth cup one completes the Hallel and recites the blessing of song. And between these cups, if one wishes to drink, one may drink. But between the third and fourth…”

Discussion: Does the Rambam Say One Makes Borei Pri HaGafen on Each Cup?

Speaker 2: The Rambam doesn’t say whether one makes a HaGafen on each one.

Speaker 1: Ah, does “a separate blessing” mean one makes a Borei Pri HaGafen? Where does it say here “a separate blessing”? Does it say here that one makes four HaGafens?

Speaker 2: No, or he’s going to say now what the separate blessing is. The separate blessing is the Kiddush of the day. The second, the separate blessing is the Haggadah.

Speaker 1: But what does it say? It doesn’t say… I don’t know. So, what about the Borei Pri HaGafen? This has to do with the laws of interruption, I don’t know what. The Rambam doesn’t say anything about this.

Speaker 2: No, the separate blessing he says is that it’s on its own.

Speaker 1: Does anyone talk about this here on the side? The Or Menachem says, “on each and every one we recite Borei Pri HaGafen.” He learns that this is what the Rambam means. Does “a separate blessing” mean Borei Pri HaGafen?

Speaker 2: It’s not clear what he means. It’s a question whether the Haggadah is an interruption. I don’t know.

Between the Cups — One May Drink; Between the Third and Fourth — One May Not Drink

Speaker 1: Okay, but if one wants to drink between the cups, one may drink, but “between the third and fourth one may not drink.” Why? Because… um, it brings diarrhea actually, and one shouldn’t become drunk before finishing Hallel.

Okay. You’re not going to drink a fourth one now before the Hallel there.

Speaker 2: Why can’t that one be the fourth?

Speaker 1: Eh, I don’t want you to be drunk because he has to say Hallel.

Charoset — A Rabbinic Commandment

Speaker 1: Okay. “Charoset is a rabbinic commandment, in remembrance of the clay that our fathers worked with in Egypt.” He doesn’t say that it’s to sweeten the maror?

Speaker 2: No, he doesn’t say.

Okay.

Speaker 1: So the Mishnah also doesn’t say “charoset is a mitzvah,” only that charoset is like a mitzvah, but maror and Pesach is a mitzvah.

Speaker 2: A mitzvah? No, not a mitzvah.

Speaker 1: Yes, the Rambam says charoset is a rabbinic commandment.

Speaker 2: By “mitzvah” he doesn’t mean rabbinic.

Speaker 1: Yes, the law follows him, like Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok who says it’s a mitzvah.

Speaker 2: Who says so?

Speaker 1: That’s what I see in the Maggid Mishneh.

Speaker 2: Ah, I don’t mean that. I mean that’s what he says. I don’t see what…

Speaker 1: Interesting. I don’t know.

The Lechem Mishneh brings a contradiction from the Perush HaMishnayos (Commentary on the Mishnah). He says that in the Perush HaMishnayos the Rambam says that according to Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok, the need for maror is a mitzvah, and he says the law follows him. And here he says that it’s a mitzvah.

Speaker 2: So perhaps, no, perhaps one can understand that Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok means that it’s a Torah commandment.

Speaker 1: Eh, on a rabbinic commandment one doesn’t make a blessing?

Speaker 2: No, because the Gemara asks “what mitzvah?”, so it’s from the Sages, the Rabbis. On rabbinic commandments one can also make a blessing.

Speaker 1: Right. So apparently, so what is the custom is a strong presumption, a continuation of holiness. It’s drawn back that one must make a blessing.

Speaker 2: Yes, that one should do it more often.

How Does One Make Charoset?

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s go further. Okay, in short, this is the charoset. Let’s go faster.

In short, this is the charoset. “Dates and figs and raisins.”

Speaker 2: What does the Rambam’s charoset consist of? He doesn’t say properly.

Speaker 1: “Dates and figs and raisins,” so he can take all three, and he cooks it and one mashes it, and one adds something. And one dips it in the tavlin, “like tavlin” means the spices.

Speaker 2: No, no, tavlin means the spices. Chazeres (lettuce) spices isn’t gluten, it’s a… This is like the table, the tavlin is like the table.

Speaker 1: “As we see to do in remembrance of the Temple,” wait, this is funny, “as we see to do in remembrance of the Temple,” and what does one do with it? One does nothing with it. But it was only a remembrance of the spices, it was placed on the table like other things that are placed on the table.

Speaker 2: But he’s going to dip in it later.

Speaker 1: But not in the maror, he’s going to dip in the karpas.

Maror — A Torah Commandment in the Time of the Temple

Speaker 1: “There is a Torah commandment in the time of the Temple, dependent on eating the Pesach offering. There is a positive commandment, ‘And they shall eat the meat on that night with matzos and bitter herbs.’” When one ate the Pesach offering, one ate the bread of affliction alone, but one ate it for the sake of the Pesach offering.

What are bitter herbs? “Bitter herbs are chazeres (lettuce) and olshin and tamcha and charchavina and maror. All of these are called maror,” and one may eat them if they’re not sharp, “a kezayis (olive-sized portion) fulfills the obligation even if moist.”

He says, “the stalk fulfills the obligation even if dry. But if one boiled them or pickled them or cooked them, one does not fulfill the obligation with them,” because it’s not sharp.