📋 Shiur Overview
Summary of the Chavrusa Learning: Rambam Hilchos Chametz U’Matzah, Chapter 8 — The Order of the Seder Night
—
General Introduction: Structure of Hilchos Chametz U’Matzah
The Rambam’s Hilchos Chametz U’Matzah has three main sections for the Seder night: Chapter 6 (the mitzvah of eating matzah), Chapter 7 (the mitzvah of recounting the Exodus from Egypt), and Chapter 8 (the order of the night). The earlier chapters deal more with the preparations — searching for chametz, destroying chametz, etc.
The Rambam has three levels in his treatment of the Seder night:
1. Halachos — the laws themselves (Chapters 6-7).
2. Seder — the practical order of how to do it (Chapter 8).
3. Haggadah — the text of the Haggadah itself (at the end).
The Rambam includes everything so that one shouldn’t need to look in any other book.
—
Introduction to Chapter 7: Five Topics — Sippur, Heseibah, Four Cups, Charoses, Maror
Chapter 7 contains five things: recounting the Exodus from Egypt, reclining, four cups, charoses, maror. Three or four of them (sippur, heseibah, four cups) are clearly “rivers of the story” — vessels/means of recounting the Exodus from Egypt. Charoses — the Rambam says it is a remembrance of the clay, one can also consider it as part of the story.
Innovation Regarding Maror — Two Types of Maror
The striking innovation: The Rambam does not say that maror is a remembrance of the bitterness (in Chapter 7). A distinction is presented between two types of maror:
1. The Torah maror — which comes with the Korban Pesach (“al matzos u’merorim yochluhu”) — is not primarily about bitterness, but rather a seasoning, a type that makes the food good (like eating bitter herbs with meat).
2. The Rabbinic maror — which we eat today without the Korban Pesach — this is only a remembrance of bitterness. The bitterness is double: (a) the lack of the Korban Pesach itself — we eat the “sandwich” without the main thing, the korban; (b) the bitterness of Egyptian exile. Therefore maror comes into Chapter 7, the chapter of recounting.
Why doesn’t the Rambam say “remembrance of clay” about maror? Because “remembrance of clay” (=servitude) is already represented by charoses. Maror in the Torah is simply a type of herb that one eats with the korban — not a symbol of bitterness. Only Rabban Gamliel said “al shum mah? al shum shemareiru haMitzrim” — this is a derasha, not the plain meaning of the Torah mitzvah.
[Digression: The Term “Maror” in Tanach — Concordance Analysis]
The root mem-reish-reish in Tanach:
– “al matzos u’merorim yochluhu” — appears only twice (Shemos and Bamidbar), both times regarding the Korban Pesach.
– “vayemareru es chayeihem” (Shemos) — language of embittering.
– “vayemarreruhu verabu ba’alei chitzim” (Bereishis, about Yosef) — rebellion or embittering.
– “bechi tamrurim” (Yirmiyahu) — bitter weeping.
– “eshkolos meroros lamo” (Ha’azinu) — bitter grapes, in the rebuke.
– “vayaneini bimerorim” (Eichah) — connected to Tisha B’Av, which falls on the same day as Pesach.
[Digression: Mor Deror]
A question is raised about “mor deror” — the Gemara says “matbei’a min haTorah minayin? mor deror.” But mor is a spice, a sweet fragrance (“mor va’ahalos ketzi’os”), not something bitter. This remains without a clear answer.
[Digression: Maror Must Be Tasty, Not Torture]
The Shulchan Aruch lists “tzenonim vechazeres” — chazeres (lettuce) is first, even though we’ve always enjoyed it. Maror must be tasty — it’s only a specific type of taste, not that one should torture oneself. Sharp things (like spicy tomatoes) don’t work because we enjoy them — it must be a specific type of enjoyment. Rabbeinu HaKadosh added vegetables that he had (radishes, lettuce) to the Seder — besides matzah and maror he added other things for a “nice Seder.”
[Digression: Purim and Seder Night]
A parallel between Purim and Seder night: Purim also has a “seder” — reading the Megillah in the midst of drinking (like the Haggadah in the midst of the four cups), mishloach manos, mishteh vesimchah.
[Digression: The Mishnah Was Made for the Wealthy]
The Mishnah’s seder (with a servant who pours a cup, a set table, etc.) was made for the wealthy/aristocracy. Rabbi Yannai’s statement “the Mishnah was only given to those who have terumah” — that the Mishnah speaks to the wealthy. “Who are the wealthy? Us!” — and if not, one must do teshuvah.
[Digression: Yissachar-Zevulun Partnership]
The Rambam’s brother (David) took the Rambam’s money and did business with it — a Yissachar-Zevulun partnership. The Rambam called him “Zevulun” (the Rambam himself is Yissachar). Therefore the Rambam is upset with Torah scholars who take money — because for him it was a real partnership, not just charity. “Yissachar Zevulun doesn’t mean that one gives money, Yissachar Zevulun means that one takes investment.” In Gur they instituted this — the Rebbe is a partner in the baal habayis’s store, with a percentage.
—
Chapter 8, Halachah 1: First Cup — Kiddush
The Rambam’s words: “The order of performing these mitzvos on this night is arranged thus: First they bring a cup for each and every person and he blesses borei pri hagafen, and says over it kiddush hayom and zeman and drinks it.”
Plain meaning: The seder begins: one brings a cup for each person, makes kiddush (borei pri hagafen, kiddush hayom, shehecheyanu) and drinks.
Innovations:
1. “They bring” not “they pour”: The precision is that each person must have their own cup, because each person is obligated in all four cups. One can perhaps fulfill the words (berachos, Haggadah) through shomei’a ke’oneh, but the drinking one cannot fulfill through another — each person must drink themselves.
2. Heseibah by the first cup: The Rambam doesn’t say here that one must drink with heseibah. The answer: he already said earlier (in a previous halachah) that one must be reclined, therefore he doesn’t repeat it. But it is asked: for practical halachos one must mention it specifically — he should say it again.
—
Halachah 1 (continued): Netilas Yadayim
The Rambam’s words: “And afterwards he blesses al netilas yadayim and washes his hands”
Plain meaning: After kiddush one washes their hands.
Innovations:
– “A cup for each and every person” vs. netilas yadayim: The Rambam says “they pour a cup for each and every person” — everyone receives a cup. But by netilas yadayim he only says “he blesses al netilas yadayim and washes his hands” without saying “each and every person.” It is implied that perhaps only the head of household washes — but this remains an open question.
– Precision in singular/plural language throughout the seder: The Rambam is very precise about what the baal habayis himself does and what everyone does. By “they bring a cup” — “for each and every person” (everyone receives a cup). By netilas yadayim — singular language (only the baal habayis). By karpas — “he and all who recline with him” (everyone eats a kezayis). This shows a conscious precision.
—
Halachah 1 (continued): They Bring the Set Table — What Lies on the Table
The Rambam’s words: “And they bring a set table — maror and another vegetable, and matzah and charoses, and the body of the Pesach lamb… the meat of the chagigah of the fourteenth day. In this time — two types of meat, one as a remembrance of the Pesach and one as a remembrance of the chagigah.”
Plain meaning: After netilas yadayim one brings the set table with maror, another vegetable (for karpas), matzah, charoses, and the Korban Pesach. In our time one places two types of meat as a remembrance.
Innovations:
1. Order of listing: It is asked why the Rambam lists maror first and then matzah — why not matzah first? This remains an open question.
2. “Another vegetable” = karpas: The “other vegetable” that the Rambam mentions is what we use for karpas.
3. “The body of the Pesach lamb” — a whole animal: The language “body” implies that one places on the table the entire Korban Pesach. This fits with the law that the Pesach is roasted whole — “al kirbo ve’al kera’av” — and all the pieces are eaten. But by chagigah he only says “meat of the chagigah” (a piece of meat), not “body” — because chagigah is not roasted whole, one takes a piece, eats today, eats tomorrow. This is a precision in the Rambam’s language — Pesach = whole animal on the table; chagigah = only a piece.
4. In our time — two types of meat (zeroa and egg): The Rambam says one places two types of meat. In practice we place meat (zeroa) and an egg, not two types of meat. The Rama rules that among Ashkenazim the custom is to take an egg as a remembrance of the chagigah, because “they were lenient since it’s easy to cook and available to all” — it’s easier and simpler. It is asked: an egg is not halachically meat — how is it a remembrance of the Korban Chagigah? The innovation: an egg is always considered in the category of meat (protein, comes from a chicken), even if halachically not meat. But this is not so simple — milk also comes from an animal and is not meat.
5. Dispute between Rav Yosef and Rav Huna: Rav Yosef holds one needs two types of meat, Rav Huna holds one doesn’t need to. We rule like Rav Huna. Nevertheless, there is a concept of “berov am hadras melech” to bring more.
6. Hints in the zeroa: The “gargel” (neck/throat of fowl) that one places on the ke’arah is connected with “kol gadol” — the voice that will tear open the world, “kol gadol velo yasaf.” The hint is “hear us and have mercy on us, save us and raise us from exile.”
7. Rabbi Avraham Breinsdorfer’s book “Eiruv Simchah” (Lancut-Bendin): He brings a precision from “they bring” in the Rambam, and he brings that the Rama says that by us we don’t place it at all (i.e. we do differently), but he concludes that it’s not a precision from the Rambam himself.
—
When Does One Bring the Table/Ke’arah — Before or After Kiddush?
The Rambam’s language: “And they bring before him the table” — one brings the table after netilas yadayim, after kiddush.
Plain meaning: The Rambam holds that one brings the table (with all the items) only after kiddush and netilas yadayim. Our custom, however, is that one prepares the ke’arah before the Seder.
Innovations:
1. Contradiction between the Rambam and the Mishnah: In the Mishnah (Pesachim) the order is: (1) “They poured for him the first cup” — kiddush; (2) “They brought before him” — karpas (vegetables); (3) only then “they brought before him matzah and chazeres and charoses” — one brings the matzah and maror after karpas. By the Rambam it appears that one brings everything — karpas, matzah, maror, cooked foods — all at once, after kiddush but before karpas. The Rambam changed the order from the Mishnah.
2. Tosafos on the page: Rashbam says “they brought before him” means vegetables for karpas. Tosafos disagrees: “they brought before him” means one brings the entire table, because “one doesn’t bring the table until after kiddush” — one doesn’t bring the table until after kiddush.
3. The Rama rules that one should bring the table after kiddush and netilas yadayim — like the Rambam. Tur in the name of Rashi says the opposite — one brings it earlier. Shulchan Aruch stands like the Rambam.
4. Practical reason: In the past there was a small table that one moved closer and further away. By kiddush one doesn’t need the table — one makes kiddush comfortably. Only when one is going to sit for a long time does one bring the table.
5. Question from shehecheyanu: The Rambam says that the shehecheyanu in kiddush also applies to matzah, maror, and the four cups. If so, it would be more fitting that by kiddush all the items should already be on the table, so that the shehecheyanu should apply to everything. Answer: As we see by Purim, shehecheyanu can apply to mitzvos even if they’re not in front of you. But nevertheless it would be more fitting if matzah and maror were indeed at the table.
6. Why on Pesach night we don’t bring matzah before kiddush: Every Shabbos both lie on the table — wine and bread — and the person can decide on which he makes kiddush. But Pesach night we don’t have the option for several reasons: (a) there are four cups of wine — a specific mitzvah with wine; (b) if one were to make kiddush on matzah (bread), it would disrupt the entire order of the four cups; (c) we want the person to remember that he doesn’t have the regular Shabbos option — therefore we don’t bring the matzah to the table at kiddush.
7. Distinction between “must bring before kiddush” and “if one brings, must cover”: There is no halachah that one must bring challah before kiddush. The halachah is only: if one brings it, one must cover it. But if one brings the challah after kiddush, that’s also fine.
8. Changing custom: One cannot change a custom without knowing the reason for that custom — “minhagei avoseinu beyadeinu.” One must investigate why we do it this way before changing.
[Digression: Derech Eretz at the Meal — The Ke’arah and Derech Cheirus]
– Practical frustration with the ke’arah: The symbolic ke’arah is not comfortable — perhaps one should buy a large plate where one can place all the foods of the entire Seder, “like a normal person.” Or even bring in a small table.
– “Even the poor of Israel” — the Rambam’s principle that even a poor person must conduct derech eretz at the meal. This applies especially to Pesach — one must make the Seder with derech eretz, not just however is comfortable. It’s a special concept of cheirus, and one must make it so that everyone will be comfortable.
– Derech cheirus: “One thing that one certainly may not do is wear an apron at the Seder — that’s certainly not derech cheirus.” One must conduct oneself like free people.
[Digression: Roasted Meat in Our Time]
One cannot buy roasted meat for Pesach, only cooked. The question of whether this applies to Yom Tov or Shabbos is touched upon but not resolved.
—
Halachah 8 (continued): Karpas
The Rambam’s words: “He begins and blesses borei pri ha’adamah, and takes a vegetable and dips it in charoses, and eats a kezayis — he and all who recline with him.”
Plain meaning: One brings a vegetable (karpas), makes a blessing borei pri ha’adamah, dips it in charoses, and eats a kezayis — he and all the participants.
Innovations:
1. “He begins” — what does it mean? It is asked whether it means that one first takes the vegetable (begins) and then says the blessing, or does “he begins” mean that here the seder begins (until now was kiddush, now the actual seder begins). The language “he begins” shows that this is the beginning of the seder proper.
2. The measure of a kezayis by karpas: The Rambam rules that one needs a kezayis. The principle is: if it’s a mitzvah, the measure of eating is not less than a kezayis. If it’s only a preparation for maror or for the child’s questions, one could say that any amount is enough. But the Rambam holds that one needs a kezayis. The Chinuch and other Rishonim have other opinions.
3. Blessing borei pri ha’adamah: One makes borei pri ha’adamah on the karpas, and this also exempts the maror later.
—
Halachah 8 (continued): Removing the Table
The Rambam’s words: “And afterwards they remove the table from before the one who reads the Haggadah alone”
Plain meaning: After karpas one removes the table only from the one who says the Haggadah.
Innovations:
1. Why only from the one who reads the Haggadah? Do all have their own tables? The answer: only the baal habayis has on his table the entire ke’arah with all the items. All others have only a small table for convenience (to put down the Haggadah, eat karpas). Therefore only by him is “removing the table” relevant. The Lechem Mishneh says “they only remove from before the one who says the Haggadah” — this fits with the Gemara.
2. Reason for removing the table: The purpose is so the child will ask (a change). One can also fulfill this by snatching the afikoman (removing the matzah), as certain opinions hold.
3. So that he won’t see bread while drinking: The table is away while one speaks of disgrace, until one finishes expounding the passage “Arami oved avi,” because we don’t want the bread to be there while speaking of shame. Only afterwards — “they return the table before him.”
—
Halachah 8 (continued): They Pour the Second Cup — Mah Nishtanah
The Rambam’s words: “And they pour the second cup and here the son asks, and the reader says mah nishtanah…”
Plain meaning: One pours the second cup, the child asks, and the one reading the Haggadah says mah nishtanah.
Innovations:
1. Who says mah nishtanah? An important precision: “Here the son asks” — the child asks what he wants, according to his wisdom (as the Rambam said earlier — each child according to his situation). “And the reader says” — the reader of the Haggadah himself says the formal text of mah nishtanah. This means: the child’s questions are spontaneous, but the traditional text of the four questions is said by the reader of the Haggadah, not by the child.
2. Why not a question and answer format? It would have been a “better play” if one person would ask the reader and he would answer word for word. But the Rambam’s order is that the reader himself asks and himself answers.
—
The Five Questions (In the Time of the Temple)
The Rambam’s words: Five questions — dipping, matzah, roasted, maror, reclining
Innovations:
1. “On all nights we dip once and this night twice” — this makes sense because we’ve already dipped once (karpas), and we’ll dip again (maror in charoses).
2. “And this night all roasted” — this refers to when the Temple stood, when the Korban Pesach is roasted. It is asked: the Rambam already said earlier that one brings two types of meat, but he didn’t specifically say it must be roasted. If the meat is not necessarily roasted, how can we say “this night all roasted”? The answer: this only applies in the time of the Temple when the Korban Pesach is present.
3. “All of us reclining” — what does “all of us” mean? Does it mean all people, or the entire night? The conclusion: “all of us” means all people — even the poorest of Israel. Usually only important people sit reclining (a servant, a woman don’t sit reclining), but this night — all sit reclining. This is the innovation of “even the poor of Israel.”
—
Beginning with Disgrace — The Order of the Haggadah
The Rambam’s words: “And he begins with disgrace and reads until he finishes expounding the entire passage of Arami oved avi”
Plain meaning: One begins with disgrace and reads until one finishes the exposition on Arami oved avi.
Innovations:
– Three times “he begins”: The Rambam says “he begins” three times in this seder: (1) they bring before him, (2) he begins and lifts the ke’arah, (3) he begins with disgrace. This is connected to the concept of “seder” — a seder for the entire year, as Rabbi Aharon of Karlin said that Rosh Hashanah is mikra’ei kodesh. Also connected to “counting” and “recounting.”
—
Lifting Maror and Matzah — But Not Pesach
The Rambam’s words: “This Pesach that we eat…” (without lifting), “he lifts maror in his hand”, “he lifts matzah”
Innovations:
1. Why no lifting by Pesach? By Pesach the Rambam doesn’t say that one lifts it, but by maror and matzah. A simple answer: the Pesach (korban/meat) is a large piece that everyone sees, one doesn’t need to lift it. Maror is a small leaf in a small dish, one doesn’t see it as well, therefore one must lift it.
2. Order of Pesach-maror-matzah: The Rambam writes “Pesach, merorim, matzah” — he lifts maror first and matzah later. The Rishonim/commentators add that in the Haggadah one lifts matzah first, because matzah is the main mitzvah. But the Rambam holds that the order is “Pesach, merorim, matzah” — not necessarily matzah first.
3. The Chasam Sofer’s/Rabbi Avraham Av Beis Din’s explanation: The Rambam also writes in Chapter 7 “Pesach, merorim, matzah” (although the Gemara has a different text). The reason: there are two types of maror — one that comes together with the Korban Pesach, and one separate. Maror is drawn after Pesach because they go together. Matzah on the other hand is a different mitzvah, not related to the Korban Pesach. Therefore Pesach-maror come together, and matzah separately.
4. Rabbeinu Manoach’s note — distinction between in the time of the Temple and in our time: In the text of Rabban Gamliel himself later in the order of the Haggadah it indeed says matzah first. The answer: In the time of the Temple, when maror is Biblical (like matzah), the order was Pesach-maror-matzah, because maror is related to Pesach. But in our time, when maror is only Rabbinic and matzah is Biblical, matzah has more importance and comes first. This is a very beautiful explanation from Rabbi Avraham Av Beis Din.
—
The Text “This Matzah That We Eat” and “Pesach That They Ate”
The Rambam’s text: “He lifts the matzah in his hand and says: This matzah that we eat, because the dough of our fathers didn’t have time to leaven…” and by Pesach: “In this time he says: Pesach that our fathers ate when the Temple stood…”
Innovations:
1. By matzah he says “that we eat” (we eat now), but by Pesach he doesn’t say “that we eat” — because we don’t eat the Korban Pesach now.
2. Text variation: One of the chavrusa members pointed out that in his text it says “when the Temple stands” (present), not “stood” (past). This is a significant textual variation.
—
The Text “Therefore We Are Obligated”
The Rambam’s text: “To thank, to praise, to laud, to glorify, to exalt, to magnify, to honor, and to eternalize, the One who did for us and for our fathers… took us out from slavery to freedom, from sorrow to joy, from mourning to festival, from darkness to great light, and from servitude to redemption.”
Innovations:
– There are textual variations in the order of the expressions of praise, and whether “and for our fathers” appears or not (manuscripts have one version).
– The Rambam says “for us” — this fits with the principle of “to take oneself out” — one must place oneself in the Exodus from Egypt.
—
“And We Shall Say Before Him Halleluyah” — Beginning Hallel
The Rambam’s text: “And we shall say before Him Halleluyah, Hallelu avdei Hashem until chalamish lemayno mayim.”
Innovation: The Rambam makes “and we shall say before Him” as a transition — now we’re going to say Hallel (the first two chapters). “And we shall say” means “we will say” — it’s an obligation to do so.
—
The Blessing “Who Redeemed Us” — Conclusion of the Haggadah
The Rambam’s text: “And he concludes: Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, who redeemed us and redeemed our fathers from Egypt, and brought us to this night to eat in it matzah and maror.”
Innovations:
1. “Redeemed us” before “our fathers”: One begins with “redeemed us” — us — and only then “and redeemed our fathers.” One places oneself in first.
2. Text variation “this night” vs. “to this night”: Rav Sherira Gaon says “this night,” Rabbeinu Saadiah also has “this night” in the Mishnah. The difference is in the translation of “and brought us” — whether “brought us to the night” or “brought us in the night.”
3. “Matzos u’merorim” (plural): The Rambam writes “merorim” (plural) because this refers to “al matzos u’merorim yochluhu” — the merorim of the Korban Pesach. But when one makes a blessing on maror itself, the Rambam says “al achilas maror” (singular). This is an innovation: “merorim” refers to the maror that comes together with the Korban Pesach, and “maror” (singular) is the separate mitzvah of maror.
—
Addition “In This Time” — Prayer for Redemption
The Rambam’s text: “In this time he adds: Our God and God of our fathers, bring us to other festivals and holidays… rejoicing in the building of Your city and joyous in Your service, to eat from the sacrifices and from the Pesach offerings…”
Innovations:
1. Joy in this time vs. in the future: Until now the joy is a “making oneself” — “to show oneself as if he went out,” “to show derech cheirus.” But when the redemption comes, one will be truly “rejoicing in the building of Your city and joyous in Your service.” In this time one makes oneself joyful; then one won’t need to “show” because it will be true joy.
2. “Sacrifices” before “Pesach offerings”: One eats sacrifices (chagigah) first, because the Korban Pesach one eats “al hasova” — one eats other meat first.
3. “Whose blood reaches the wall of Your altar favorably” — why “wall”? It’s the language of the verse, but a word: “wall” hints at “ke’arah” (the Seder plate), and “altar” is an acronym for Maror, Zeroa, Beitzah, Charoses (mizbei’ach). This is said every year.
4. “And we shall say before Him a new song”: We pray that then we will say a new song — not the old Hallel of David, but a new Hallel for the new redemption.
5. “Bring us to other festivals and holidays” — what does it mean? Does “other festivals” mean new holidays that will come with the redemption, or does it mean the same holidays again? The plain meaning: it means the next holiday (even Shavuos) — like shehecheyanu, we thank that we’ve arrived until here, and we pray that the next holiday will already be with a complete redemption. “Next time it shouldn’t be with the ‘fake’ anymore — next time we’ll actually make a Korban Pesach.”
—
“Blessed Are You, Hashem, Who Redeemed Israel”
Innovation: The blessing “who redeemed Israel” speaks of the redemption from Egypt (past) — this we say even in this time. In the future we will say a new song with true joy, not just “to show.”
—
The Second Cup and Its Drinking
The Rambam’s words: “Borei pri hagafen and drinks the second cup”
Plain meaning: After finishing the Haggadah one makes borei pri hagafen and drinks the second cup.
Innovation: The Rambam says “borei pri hagafen” (not “al hagefen”), which means the first blessing, not a final blessing.
—
Second Netilas Yadayim
The Rambam’s words: “And afterwards he blesses al netilas yadayim and washes his hands a second time”
Plain meaning: One washes their hands again before eating matzah, because there was hesech hada’as during the reading of the Haggadah.
Innovations:
– It was thought earlier that removing the table (removing the table) perhaps has to do with netilas yadayim — that one removes the food so the items won’t become
tamei. But by the second netilas yadayim it does not say that one removes the table — the table is already back (returning the table), and therefore one must wash. This proves that hesech hada’as is the reason for the second washing, not the table.
—
Yachatz — Breaking the Matzah
The Rambam’s words: “And therefore two wafers, he divides one of them and places the broken piece into the whole one”
Plain meaning: One has two matzos, one breaks one and places the piece into the whole one.
Innovations:
1. Order of yachatz: The Rambam places yachatz after the second netilas yadayim, not before maggid as we do. Interesting that the Rambam’s order is different.
2. “Broken piece into the whole one”: With soft matzos one understands well how one can place a piece into a whole one (wrap it in). But the Rambam uses the word “rekikin” which also means hard, thin matzos (crackers), so “into” doesn’t necessarily mean wrapping.
3. Why two matzos? If the concept is “lechem oni” — poor man’s bread — why not take only one broken piece? Why must one also have a whole one? This remains without an answer. “Lechem oni” can mean not only a broken matzah, but also matzah without any seasoning (not matzah ashirah), or a reminder that we were poor.
—
Blessings on Matzah and Maror — In the Time of the Temple
The Rambam’s words: “He wraps matzah and maror together and dips in charoses… Blessed are You, Hashem… al achilas matzos u’merorim”
Plain meaning: In the time of the Temple one makes korech of matzah and maror together, dips in charoses, and makes one blessing on both.
Innovations:
1. Text of the blessing — “matzos u’merorim” or “matzah u’merorim”? In one text it says “matzah u’merorim” (singular), but it is pointed out that it says “matzos u’merorim” (plural). This fits with the language of the verse “al matzos u’merorim yochluhu” (Bamidbar 9:11).
2. “They would eat them separately”: The Rambam says that if one wants, one can eat matzah and maror each separately with extra blessings. It is asked why this is only an option and not an obligation. The answer: this is the dispute of Hillel — Hillel wrapped them together, and others ate them separately.
—
Blessings on Chagigah and Pesach — In the Time of the Temple
The Rambam’s words: “He blesses ‘al achilas hazevach’ and eats from the meat of the chagigah first, and afterwards he blesses ‘al achilas haPesach’ and eats from the body of the Pesach… and the blessing of the Pesach doesn’t exempt that of the sacrifice nor does that of the sacrifice exempt that of the Pesach, because this is a mitzvah by itself and this is a mitzvah by itself”
Plain meaning: One makes a separate blessing on chagigah and a separate blessing on Pesach, because each is a mitzvah by itself.
Innovations:
1. “From the meat of the chagigah” versus “from the body of the Pesach”: A remarkable precision in language — by chagigah the Rambam says “from the meat” (a piece of meat), but by Pesach he says “from the body of the Pesach” (not “from the meat of the Pesach”). This fits with the earlier precision that Pesach is a whole animal on the table (“the body of the Pesach lamb”), while chagigah is only a piece.
—
In Our Time — Order of Eating
The Rambam’s words: “In this time when we don’t have a sacrifice, after he blesses hamotzi lechem he returns and blesses al achilas matzah and dips matzah in charoses and eats. He returns and blesses al achilas maror and dips maror in charoses and eats, and he shouldn’t leave it in the charoses lest it nullify its taste. And this is a mitzvah from the words of the Sages. And he returns and wraps matzah and maror and dips in charoses and eats them without a blessing, as a remembrance of the Temple.”
Plain meaning: In our time one makes hamotzi, then al achilas matzah with dipping in charoses, then al achilas maror with dipping in charoses, then korech without a blessing — as a remembrance of the Temple.
Innovations:
1. Matzah in charoses: The Rambam says that the matzah is also dipped in charoses — “he dips matzah in charoses.” “Interesting thing, everything one dips.”
2. Taste of maror: “And he shouldn’t leave it in the charoses lest it nullify its taste” — this is the first time we see that maror must have a sharpness/taste, one should feel it. This fits with the earlier innovation that maror must be tasty, but with a specific taste that one must feel.
3. “And this is a mitzvah from the words of the Sages”: The maror in our time is only Rabbinic (without the Korban Pesach). This fits with the entire foundation of two types of maror — the Torah maror is only with the Korban Pesach, and without the Korban Pesach maror is only Rabbinic.
—
Afikoman — Taste of the Pesach Meat/Matzah
The Rambam’s words: “And at the end he eats from the meat of the Pesach at least a kezayis and doesn’t taste any other food at all. In this time he eats a kezayis of matzah and doesn’t taste anything after it, so that he should end his meal with the taste of the Pesach meat and the matzah, for eating them is the mitzvah.”
Plain meaning: One ends with afikoman — in the time of the Temple a kezayis from the Korban Pesach, in our time a kezayis of matzah — and one doesn’t eat anything more afterwards.
Innovations:
– “For eating them is the mitzvah”: The main mitzvah of the night is the eating of Pesach/matzah — not the “eating whatever he wants” that the Rambam mentioned earlier. We want to end with the taste of the mitzvah itself, not with just eating.
—
The Third Cup — Bircas Hamazon
The Rambam’s words: “And afterwards he washes his hands [mayim acharonim] and blesses Bircas Hamazon over the third cup and drinks it.”
Plain meaning: One washes mayim acharonim, makes Bircas Hamazon over the third cup, and drinks it.
—
The Fourth Cup — Hallel
The Rambam’s words: “And afterwards he pours the fourth cup and completes over it the Hallel and says over it the blessing of song, which is ‘All Your works shall praise You, Hashem our God’ etc. And he doesn’t taste anything after this all night except for water.”
Plain meaning: One pours the fourth cup, finishes Hallel, says the blessing of song (“Yehalelucha”), and drinks. Afterwards one doesn’t eat/drink anything more (except water).
—
The Fifth Cup — Hallel HaGadol
The Rambam’s words: “And one may pour a fifth cup and say over it Hallel HaGadol, which is from ‘Hodu laHashem ki tov’ until ‘Al naharos Bavel’. And all this is not an obligation like the four cups.”
Plain meaning: One can pour a fifth cup and say Hallel HaGadol — from “Hodu laHashem ki tov” until “Al naharos Bavel.” But this is not an obligation like the first four cups.
Innovations:
1. The fifth cup ≠ the cup of Eliyahu: The Rambam’s fifth cup is not the “cup of Eliyahu” that one sets aside — the Rambam speaks of a cup that one drinks and says over it Hallel HaGadol. “This is not the one that one doesn’t drink.”
2. Optional, not obligatory: “And all this is not an obligation like the four cups” — the fifth cup is optional.
3. Completing the Hallel — even not at the place of the meal: The Rambam says and some say to complete the Hallel in any place he wants. From this we learn that the part of completing the Hallel is not such an important part of the Seder that one must do it specifically at the Seder table. One can do it even not at the place of the meal — for example, one can go to the Rebbe’s table and there say Hallel HaGadol properly. This shows that Hallel HaGadol and the fifth cup have a different law from the main Seder, and are not bound to the place of the meal.
—
[Digression: The Concept of Redemption Drawn Throughout the Seder]
The Seder night is drawn through with the hope for redemption — “next year in Jerusalem.” At the first kiddush one removes the table (without meat), but at the second kiddush one already speaks about sacrifices, because one mentions the redemption — “next time one will actually make a Korban Pesach, one won’t eat the Rabbinic maror, one will eat the Biblical maror.”
📝 Full Transcript
The Order of Performing the Mitzvot on the Night of the 15th — Law 1: Introduction to the Order of the Night
Introduction: Structure of the Laws of Chametz and Matzah
Speaker 1:
If one wants to make an introduction to the order of all these laws, seemingly the main chapters should be chapters 6, 7, 8, right? Because chametz and matzah is less relevant. That is, the laws of chametz and matzah are less relevant. The laws of how to make…
Before that are the laws that are relevant for this, the thirty days before the holiday, the whatever, the matters, searching for chametz, and all other preparations. Destroying chametz, nullifying certain chametz. But the order is the mitzvot of the Seder. People simply love the mitzvot of the Seder night. So seemingly chapter 6 is the mitzvah of eating matzah, and chapter 7 is the mitzvah of telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt, chapter 8 is the mitzvah of the order of the night.
Five Topics in Chapter 7
Speaker 1:
It’s interesting, actually, one can say as you say that maror… because maror you know what not, but reclining and the four cups… In chapter 7 it says like the telling of the Exodus from Egypt, reclining, the four cups, charoset, maror. Five things. And three, four of them certainly one can say are like part of the story. That is, the telling of the Exodus from Egypt, the reclining and the four cups are all like part of the story, and the customs of the story. Can you call them customs? According to the Rambam certainly presumably. The charoset the Rambam said is a remembrance of the clay. One can also say it’s part of the customs. As you say about the maror he didn’t say.
Innovation: Two Types of Maror
Speaker 1:
It’s interesting, your innovation that you say about Purim is interesting, because your type of Purim is very similar to the Seder. Your type of Purim of a feast and joy where there is a storyteller and there is in it sending portions one to another, is a kind of Seder night, a Seder of the day, whatever. Okay. According to the practical matter is that one must read the Megillah in the middle of the drinking. The simple meaning is, I say, actually, it’s set up that way. Such a holy Megillah one reads in the middle of drinking. It says in the Midrash, the Haggadah one says in the middle of drinking, right? But the holy Purim can be a kal vachomer, mah devarim kal vachomer.
So…it makes sense. But the only thing he doesn’t say is about the maror, it’s interesting. Because one could argue, perhaps actually yes. That seemingly like the idea of maror comes with the Pesach, why did they actually give maror? Perhaps it was actually as a remembrance of maror deror, like clay, like a remembrance of clay.
Speaker 2:
Very good. According to this one can answer why the Rambam doesn’t say anything about remembrance of clay, because remembrance of clay he says is seemingly what the Jews had. Very good. Because it doesn’t say that, it only says “maror”. Very good. Rabban Gamliel first said, Rabban Gamliel said a statement, “hemarat chayim” the language of maror. Aha. Very interesting. Let’s check how it says the language “hemarat chayim” the language of maror. Let’s give a check in the concordance on this.
Analysis of the Word “Maror” in Tanach
Speaker 2:
“Maror”. “Ki mar li, al tikre’ena li Na’omi kir’an li Marah”. It doesn’t say “maror” there. “Maror” is its own word. The word “maror”, if it’s a noun, an object, it only appears three times in the entire Torah. It says “al matzot umarorim yochluhu”. One is one. Where is the third time? Let me see if I can add a third time. Two times by matzot. And another time? I don’t remember another time in Parshat Shemot. “Vayemareru et chayeihem”.
“Al matzot umarorim yochluhu”, “al matzot umarorim yochluhu”, that’s the same verse in Parshat Bo. “Vayemareru et chayeihem” is in Tehillim. “Vayemareru” is in Tehillim? No, in Eichah. “La’anah varosh”. No, no, no. “La’anah varosh” is not “maror”. I mean, maybe one fulfills maror with la’anah varosh, I don’t know. But “la’anah varosh” is in Eichah. No, no, in Eichah it says, “he’echilani bamarorim”, and “he’echilani la’anah”. It’s an extra verse. But it’s the same time period, I mean, it’s the same time. So what? The same day that Pesach comes out, Tisha B’Av also comes out.
That’s the word “maror”. And the concordance makes it extra. There you see clearly that it’s bitter herbs. Yes, la’anah is also a bitter herb. It’s simply, simply simply la’anah. It actually says that… I don’t know what la’anah is, rosh and la’anah. Why doesn’t one fulfill with rosh and la’anah? But fine. If it’s a type of maror, it’s seemingly certain. Yes, fulfills, one fulfills. But I mean the person holds that marorim means that this is something bitter, or it’s a noun of a type of herb. But the root mar itself, ah, “kemarer hamayim” says about the water, “vayemareru et chayeihem”, like made bitter. But one sees “kehamar ason alai me’od”, that it’s a language of bitter to me, not very hard.
One sees “vayemareruhu verabu” about Yosef. It says “vayemareruhu verabu ba’alei chitzim”. But how does it say “vayemareruhu” about Yosef? He brings the verse, the person brings the verse “al tamar bo”. I thought that “al tamar bo” means about the angel in the Yerushalmi, “al tamar bo” is like rebellion, no? From the language like “shim’u na hamorim”. Like I also thought. In short, it doesn’t appear many times in the Chumash, for example, it only appears those two times. That is, marorim by Yosef, “vayemareruhu verabu”, seemingly there it also means the language of rebellion, no? That he was the important one of the brothers, they rebelled against him? No, there was no rebellion, he was the younger brother. They embittered him and fought with him.
There are other words that one can interpret, okay, it’s not so important. Ah, “bechi tamarurim”, what says “kol beramah nishma nehi bechi tamarurim”. That means loud, like “mar”, I don’t know, there are many interpretations there, not clear. “Eshkolot merorot lamo”, it says in… ah, bitter herbs, one second… bitter… bitter… in “Veyera’ash”, it goes up to the… Baruch Hashem, Hillel Rachel Flachal. Yes. In “Veyera’ash”, “eshkolot merorot lamo”. I mean he says both. By us one says more goes more, but one also sees… no, there it is yes. I don’t know where they brought it. “Eshkolot merorot”, “merorot”, “marorim”. “Merorot yachilenu”. “Eshkolot merorot” there it says “hezi’anu umarorim”, the food that one brings. But it also says “eshkolot merorot lamo”, it says in the rebuke, no? In “Ha’azinu”. Can one give this as a source? I’m looking in, I don’t want to say anything false. “Eshkolot merorot” means bitter grapes.
“Anvei rosh”. “Anvei za’am”. You know the language, “anvei za’am”. It’s a kind of thought. “Anvei rosh, eshkolot merorot lamo”. That is, the rosh is like the rosh of a snake, the same thing. Bitter, bitter things, yes.
Innovation: Maror D’Oraita is Seasoning, Maror D’Rabbanan is Remembrance of Bitterness
Speaker 2:
And perhaps because of that one drinks the wine, bitter wine. But one drinks a majority, that’s against the Rambam. That’s what I mean, that another way of eating maror.
Okay, to add to the matter that I wanted to say, that the interpretation is thus, that the original maror that comes with the Pesach is not the matter of being bitter. I mean, it’s bitter, but it’s not the essence. The matter is to season, it should be good. But it could be the rabbinic maror that doesn’t go with anything. Therefore, that maror is only a remembrance of bitterness.
It fits very well, because there is bitterness here. The bitterness is that there is a lack of the Korban Pesach. When a person eats the whole sandwich but the whole king is missing, the Korban Pesach, it’s bitter to him. And the bitterness is the bitterness of the Egyptian exile, and therefore it comes into this chapter, which is the chapter of the story.
Digression: Mor Deror
Speaker 2:
We need to know now how mor deror fits in with this. Because the Gemara says, “seasoning from the Torah from where?” Mor deror. But mor deror is a type of spice, no? It’s a type… “shenatan reicho”, “shenatet rei’ach tov”. “Mor va’ahalot ketzi’ot”. It’s not the same type… “Mor va’ahalot ketzi’ot”. Mor is not bitter. Mor is not bitter, it’s sweet. I don’t know what it tastes like. Mark, Merle. It’s not bitter. Chamar mar. I mean I’m getting stuck, I don’t know. Okay.
Three Levels in the Rambam’s Treatment of the Seder Night
Speaker 2:
Well, let’s return to our matter. Let’s go continue learning. Until now the Rambam has done thus: the Mishnah only says the order, but the Rambam has now finished learning the laws, now he’s going to say what one should do. Why he lays out the whole reverse order, I don’t know, but that’s what he says. The question is why the Mishnah lays it out. The Rambam continues with the order, but the Mishnah always goes like this. Not necessarily only that, one goes. Because the Rambam has already said all the laws, now figure out yourself what you need to do. Why should the Rambam bother? But we’ve already discussed that the Rambam wants that one shouldn’t need to look up in his book any other book. He puts in a Haggadah of Pesach, just as he puts in other places other things. Ah, at the end one will actually use a Haggadah extra. That’s another thing, there are three things: there are the laws, there is the order, and there is the Haggadah. By the Rambam you see three different levels of the Rambam, interesting.
Right. It’s already very cold. Yes, you say well. We need to raise the temp. Interesting. It’s interesting, I don’t know.
Law 1: Beginning of the Order of the Night
Speaker 2:
Okay, says the holy Rabbi: “Seder asiyat mitzvot elu balailah hazeh mesudor kach hu”. Okay, this is the order of how to perform the mitzvot. “Batchilah mevi’in kos lechol echad ve’echad”. There is a precision that each one should have, yes? It says “mevi’in”, not “mozgin”. Why? Because each individual is obligated in all the cups. Right. In all the cups? Yes. Yes. Yes. It makes sense that one can fulfill. One can perhaps fulfill the words, but the drinking one cannot fulfill for another, that each one needs to have a cup.
If so, good.
“Techilah notnim kos lechol echad ve’echad, umevarech borei peri hagafen.” He means here to hint that the custom that
Law 8: The Order of Performing the Mitzvot of the Night
Digression: The Mishnah is Made for the Wealthy
Speaker 1: No, but that’s the order that stands thus from above. Ah, mozgin lo kos rishon. There is one, there is the servant, there a slave. The Mishnah is made for the wealthy, I’ve seen it thus. Rabbi Yannai said, “The Mishnah was only given for the wealthy.” You didn’t agree.
The order is that those who do the Mishnah need to be wealthy with servants, I don’t know what you want. If it’s not so, the world is not bad.
I already heard my sermon Erev Rosh Hashanah, where do you daven Rosh Hashanah? What is this, one davens at “Koach Shimon”? What is this “Koach Shimon”? No one knows what it means. It means that the Torah scholars should be wealthy. “Yir’u tzadikim veyismach’u”, what is this “yir’u tzadikim”? “Tzadikim” are the Rabbis. “Machati rish’ah ve’alzah”. That’s what one davens, one davens that the false rabbi shouldn’t have any chassidim, and the true rabbi should have many chassidim. The problem is that each one davens it.
Now it doesn’t work. Yes, yes, yes. I’m just telling you simple interpretation, therefore the same thing, all Mishnayot are made for the aristocracy, for the wealthy. Who are the wealthy? Us! Not actually in practice, and if it’s not, one needs to do teshuvah, one needs to work more.
Digression: Maror Must Be Tasty, Not Torture
Speaker 1: A small note, not relevant here. But you asked earlier how one fulfills with things that aren’t bitter. The Rabbi rules in Shulchan Aruch “tzenunim vechazeret”. What does that mean? He always enjoyed chazeret, and yet he lists chazeret first. I don’t understand!
I agree with you that one must enjoy it. Bitter doesn’t mean that one must torture oneself. That’s not any doubt. But what was? Always one ate bitter things. A bitter pickle or a sharp… what is the main thing? The sharp tomatoes aren’t… spicy, whatever. Why? Because one enjoys it. It’s a pleasure. It must be the type of enjoyment.
No one eats something they hate. I mean, not at all. There’s no doubt that the maror must be tasty. It’s only which type of taste. Those who say one must have specifically bitter, they only say differently that one needs that type of taste. They don’t say that one should torture oneself. Those who say one must torture oneself, I don’t know what.
It’s a bit interesting, because the things that the karpas, tzenunim vechazeret… basically, Rabbeinu HaKadosh somewhere had vegetables. He wanted to make a nice Mishnah, a nice order, so he added. Besides the matzah and maror, he added other things that he had. He had his own tzenunim vechazeret, so he added karpas with… I don’t know exactly how it was.
Speaker 2: No, you said that the Mishnah is his ontological…
Speaker 1: The Mishnah is truly the Oral Torah, and you see it. Also the Gemara, all the Sages of Israel were wealthy. What was that already?
But the Gemara specifically has the discussion here. Rav Shizvi was a great pauper, and the Gemara discussed about this here.
Speaker 2: Yes, you actually have a question, I have no answer. What do you see here? That he doesn’t make sure that the Almighty should make him into a wealthy person. He would have been willing to be a wealthy person, right?
Speaker 1: No, until he came to his house he said nothing.
Speaker 2: But you see yes, Avraham Gamliel was indeed a wealthy person, right? And the Nasi, yes, yes, yes.
Speaker 1: It’s a good opportunity to mention the QuickPay address.
Speaker 2: Okay. And all according to the ability of each and every one.
Digression: Yissachar-Zevulun Partnership
Speaker 1: No, a wealthy person doesn’t mean idle, that’s a mistake. A wealthy person means… I mean the opposite, if it’s a time of honor of Torah it’s truly a revelation. The opposite. When one looks down on the righteous and one looks down on business, one lets him do business himself. But when it’s the world in its proper state, what should be is, the world in its proper state is that the rabbi does business with the rabbi. They do business and make a partnership, take a bit of investment.
Speaker 2: No, I told him, he wouldn’t have wanted to play it doesn’t go to make the rabbi a partner. No one wanted to make a partnership with the rabbi’s money.
Speaker 1: The Rambam’s brother needed the Rambam’s money, he didn’t want the Rambam to have the humiliation that he takes. So he took the Rambam’s money and went around with it, because the Rambam considered him a Yissachar. The Rambam mentioned about him that he is Yissachar, that he is Zevulun.
And therefore the Rambam himself is very angry at Torah scholars who take money, because it was enough for the honor of Torah. It was enough to sustain. Yissachar Zevulun doesn’t mean that one gives money, Yissachar Zevulun means that one takes investment.
But you understand, the Zevulun went around with a bunch of Zevuluns, yes? He can in a moment receive from anybody a hundred thousand dollars, why does he need your two thousand dollars? Because he wants you…
So says the Rambam’s brother, he didn’t want the Rambam to have the taste of that he is dependent on rabbinate. He took money from him, but…
Speaker 2: I don’t agree, it’s not fake, it’s very real. Yesterday, if someone has connections and he takes a brother and gives him a job, is it fake? He actually works for him. He takes my money and he makes numbers, I don’t do it myself, I agree that the whole… It’s a money partnership only. I’m not a… perhaps he gives me sometimes advice, I don’t know, but I’m not a practical partner.
Speaker 1: Well fine, anyway, that’s part of the support, but it’s not that… He says, I would have wanted to give you money, I’m making the whole thing with you a partnership.
Speaker 2: No, he’s actually a partner.
Speaker 1: I understand you, that if someone first has two thousand dollars from one person, then he has ten thousand dollars, and then he can from the next, until he can actually be a partner. I understand you. But I’m speaking now, every business started that way, right? It started, he inherited from father, from somewhere he started, right? So, that’s the best, a better way. I understand.
And he can lose also. If that one didn’t succeed in the business, well, then the rabbi also isn’t there. It’s not… today it also goes like that anyway, right? And he just doesn’t give. If the rabbi believes, it’s not my whole game.
But the truth, in today’s times supporting the rabbi is also not just charity. One calls the rabbi to ask information for you for a shidduch, the rabbi is busy, he gives speeches at a bar mitzvah, at a sheva brachot, he gives you attention, he’s there for you in your daily life.
Speaker 2: I agree.
Speaker 1: That’s neither here nor there. I agree. Not the greatest salary, but plain half a million dollars a year fits for a rabbi.
With celery one can also fulfill karpas, that’s a wonderful thing.
Back to the Topic: The Custom in Gur
Speaker 1: Back to the topic here. What I mean that you say, in Gur they introduced this, you know? By middot?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Lecture on Rambam’s Laws of Pesach – Chunk 2 of 5
Speaker 1: What do you mean they did business? That the baalei batim (householders) took in the Rebbe as a partner. That’s what it was called in Gur. The Rebbe is a partner in my store. It was that they made a percentage, and it’s honest. I heard this week, they had a Gur leader.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 1: Let’s go. Here it goes.
“The order of performing the mitzvos of the night on lechem mishneh (double loaves) arranged according to halacha. First, one pours a cup for each and every person and recites borei pri hagafen, and says over it kiddush hayom (sanctification of the day) and zman (shehecheyanu) and drinks it”.
Makes sense. Simple. “And afterwards” — first kiddush hayom, then zman, and drinks it, one drinks it.
Discussion: Leaning for the First Cup
Speaker 1: “And afterwards” — one drinks it while leaning. I mean, earlier it says one drinks it while leaning, no?
Speaker 2: Yes, but it doesn’t say it here.
Speaker 1: Earlier it says that it must be while leaning.
Speaker 2: Earlier it says it while leaning. Why doesn’t he say it here?
Speaker 1: Because he already said it.
Speaker 2: Okay, but he should say it again.
Netilas Yadayim — Who Washes?
Speaker 1: “And afterwards he recites al netilas yadayim and washes his hands”.
Interesting, because he says “a cup for each and every person,” but “recites al netilas yadayim” he doesn’t say. Apparently one could infer here that only the gadol habayis (head of household), right? I don’t know. He doesn’t say “and all recite the blessing,” like he says…
Speaker 2: Because he’s also speaking about hesech hadaas (distraction) between the drinks. He already explained with the mevi’im lechatchila (bringing initially) here and another cup.
Speaker 1: What do I know, there’s some hint.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay.
What’s on the Table
Speaker 1: “And afterwards he recites al netilas yadayim and washes his hands, and they bring in a shulchan aruch (set table)”.
And perhaps, what’s everything on the table? He says the order, he lists first maror, why doesn’t he say first matzah?
Speaker 2: Okay, read. Not so important.
Speaker 1: Maror and another vegetable, another vegetable that should be used for… We became aware that the other vegetable is used for karpas. And matzah and charoses and the body of the Pesach lamb, we’re talking about when there’s a korban Pesach.
He says the order how one must do it. One must bring a korban Pesach, you don’t have a Pesach.
Speaker 2: No, perhaps…
Speaker 1: Ah, in our time, he says, so he goes, meat of the chagigah (festival offering) of the fourteenth day. In our time one will place two types of meat, one as a remembrance of the Pesach and one as a remembrance of the chagigah.
Discussion: Two Types of Meat — What’s the Custom?
Speaker 1: So I don’t remember that by us there should be two types of meat. One could infer here that it’s good to have two types of meat on the ke’arah (seder plate). Ah, an egg, because we have the concern of kodashim bachutz (sacrifices outside). In practice one must look in the commentators. By us we also bring, by us we bring two tavshilin (cooked foods), but by us we bring meat and an egg. You can look in the Rambam how he understands. In practice there’s no simple explanation, one must see what’s the order of the ke’arah according to the Rambam. The Rambam looked at what the Torah emes (true Torah) is.
Novel Point: “Gufah Shel Kevesh HaPesach” — A Whole Animal
Speaker 1: It’s interesting, “gufah shel kevesh haPesach” (the body of the Pesach lamb), this looks like one means the whole thing, one places on the table a whole little animal. And from the chagigah it’s enough that one places a piece, “meat of chagigah,” he doesn’t say that one places the whole korban chagigah.
Ah, on Pesach there’s the thing that one roasts it whole, and not most, al karvo ve’al kera’av (on its innards and its legs). The chagigah is like always, one takes a piece, there isn’t the concept of what is a whole animal that one places on the table.
Speaker 2: Yes, it’s a bit precise in the language.
Speaker 1: The Pesach is the only thing that one roasts whole, so one places it whole on the table, because all the pieces will be eaten. Which is not so with chagigah, one takes a piece from it, one eats today, one eats from it tomorrow.
One as a remembrance of Pesach and one as a remembrance of chagigah.
The Raavad’s Dispute
Speaker 1: The Raavad there in the book, from him it’s reversed. Eruv Simcha, and he says that there’s no proof from the prophets, and he brings that the Rema says indeed the custom that one shows the moon to the gabbaim, but he says that there’s no proof from the prophets.
Halacha 8 (Continued): Two Types of Meat, Time of Bringing the Table, and Derech Eretz at the Meal
Two Types of Meat — Zeroa and Egg
Speaker 1:
Which is not so with chagigah, one takes a piece from it, one eats today, one eats from it tomorrow, one part as a remembrance of Pesach and one part as a remembrance of chagigah.
In Rabbi Avraham Breinsdorfer’s sefer he brings his grandfather’s father’s “Eruv Simcha,” and he says there a proof from the commentators, and he brings that the Rema says indeed the custom that by us one doesn’t place it at all, but he says that it’s not a proof from the Rambam. It’s a good sefer, the “Eruv Simcha,” Lantzut-Bendin, he has good notes. Yes, he says there everything they said, so it makes sense. Wonderful. Okay, agreed.
I wanted to see about the two types of meat. Two types of meat is, but what do the poskim say about the zeroa (shankbone)? The Rema already says that one brings an egg as a remembrance of the chagigah, and they were lenient because it’s easier to cook and available to all, it’s simply easier. Ah, but it’s poverty. There’s still the concept of “berov am hadras melech” (in the multitude of people is the king’s glory).
So if someone wants, can he yes bring two types of meat, no? The Rema didn’t even write. He only said simply that by us the custom is meat and egg. Rav Yosef said that one must have two types of meat, and Rav Huna said that one doesn’t need to, we rule like Rav Huna. In any case, there are those who say that one should yes bring two types of meat. But there’s still a concept of bringing “berov am hadras melech,” so one should place that too. Okay, one can say meat is yevashes ranu vesira tova, one can, everything has a hint, but it’s interesting because the Gemara has several such hints on leil Pesach, basar chamor alah, and here is zeroa.
The Hint of Zeroa — “Gargel” and Kol Gadol
Oh, the Rebbe says a gargel from the previous previous of the pants, and he sells this as… it’s still a gargel, what is gargel? One doesn’t mean the hands, one means the great voice that will tear open the world, one says it through the gargel. Kol gadol is enough, kol gadol velo yasaf (a great voice and no more).
Shema’einu verachem aleinu, hatzileinu veha’aleinu mehagalusi. This is indeed the hint, what you say zeroa, one places a gargel from a chicken food, what is indeed the simple meaning of this? I know that the Zionists have some word why one places an egg, but it’s not… Yes. Egg? Like what? No, okay. What do they say? It’s a concept, nu? What? No, no, no, it’s a real joke, because the exodus from Egypt, the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, yes, did you hear me? It could be it’s really a word, okay. Okay. I don’t know the jokes. Yes, it goes like this.
Time of Bringing the Table — Before or After Kiddush?
Speaker 1:
In any case, so what are you saying like what? Yes, it’s interesting, one brings the table after washing, yes, rachatz and netilas yadayim, and afterwards one brings a table with all things. It’s interesting, by us we don’t do so, by us we prepare the ke’arah before the seder. The Rema has a ruling that it should be brought, but one should do it after kiddush, after kiddush and netilas yadayim. Again, from the law of shulchan aruch, yes, when must it be brought? Why is indeed the simple meaning? Why do we bring this later?
Speaker 2:
No, I mean that technically, once there was a small table that one pushed closer and pushed away, so at kiddush one doesn’t need the table, one makes kiddush and one is comfortable. So. When does one bring the table? When one is going to start sitting a whole time. But I don’t know, indeed the ke’arah should one bring after kiddush?
Speaker 1:
I don’t know, there is about this… One minute, let’s see. I believe that there’s a language “omer oleh ve’arba kosos,” no? I believe that there’s a Mishnah. I have it in the work from him. He brings it. Anu mesadrim lefanav. I don’t know, I don’t know what the simple meaning is. He doesn’t say. He only says that one makes the ke’arah. But why doesn’t one bring it after kiddush indeed?
The Rambam, Tur, Tosafos and Shulchan Aruch
Ah, he says so: “And they bring before him the table”. The Tur in the name of Rashi says indeed the opposite, even the Rambam himself. Ah, yes. So it says in Tosafos, that one brings the table after kiddush. Shulchan Aruch says indeed like the Rambam.
Ah, “mevi’im” says afterwards? Shulchan Aruch says later, in Shulchan Aruch HaRav it says here. This doesn’t mean the table, this means that.
In short, it’s not clear. There are opinions about this. But the Rambam sees it holds indeed so. He says that the custom is not so, why not. He says one should do like the Rambam.
Speaker 2:
Nu, agreed. No, one must look into why one does so. One can’t change a custom without knowing the reason for that custom. And look into minhagei avoseinu beyadeinu, what’s happening here.
Speaker 1:
Ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay. What greatness do we have? What do we have going to be our intellect to say why one does our order. Ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay.
Question About Shehecheyanu — Why Not Everything at Kiddush?
The ke’arah. I have another question. I see that the Rambam says that the kiddush goes out also on the matzah and the maror and four cups, no? This isn’t the kiddush, this is the shehecheyanu kiddush. Ah, the kiddush. Shehecheyanu, shehecheyanu. And so there is yes a concept that everything should be on the table, no? It would have been more fitting that at kiddush all things should already be. So that the shehecheyanu goes out also on all the mitzvos afterwards.
Speaker 2:
Ah, specifically? I mean one sees on Purim that the shehecheyanu can go out on mitzvos even if it’s not in front of you. But on the shehecheyanu one means the matzah and the maror, it would have been more fitting that it should yes be at the table.
Speaker 1:
By us we make all the ke’arah for the… for the… for the…
Ashreichem. One must indeed do not so. One must make some such ceremony, a while for a blessing, it’s a hove.
Speaker 2:
Like chametz.
Speaker 1:
Yes, the children… yochlu anavim veyisba’u.
He’s precise that in other places it says that one makes it on the day, about the… in Shulchan Aruch, on the day, and this is another proof. I don’t know. I don’t know.
Derech Eretz at the Meal — The Ke’arah and Derech Cheirus
Speaker 1:
I’m very not happy with our ke’arah situation. I’m always looking for some solution how to fix this. I’ve even thought this year to buy such a huge tray, one should be able to place on it all the foods of the whole seder, like a normal person. The symbolic ke’arah I very much don’t like. I’m not comfortable. One must remember that I already learned in the middle before the… perhaps one should buy a large tray. Do you understand what I’m saying? Such a large tray, place everything on it.
Speaker 2:
Okay. Perhaps indeed a table. Perhaps one should bring in a table. What’s wrong?
Speaker 1:
Yes.
Speaker 2:
A small table, such a… There are ke’aros that stand on a stand, have you ever seen?
Speaker 1:
Yes, a sixth of a large ke’arah.
Speaker 2:
And silver.
Speaker 1:
We’re talking about poverty, not about wealth.
Speaker 2:
Derech eretz. Even the poor of Israel, they have derech eretz. Even a poor person should make derech eretz. Okay, nu nu.
Speaker 1:
I hear. I hear what you’re saying.
Even a poor person should make derech eretz. Okay, nu nu. Excuse me, come, come, it happened. No, this isn’t one question, it’s a future. I mean that we don’t need to change our derech eretz at the meal, the basic. No needs yes. No, Friday night also says in the Gemara, I mean that in the Gemara it says various times derech eretz at the meal. But it’s only because one has this side concept how it is. This isn’t Friday night, we’re talking now about Pesach. What should be special? You’re also counted, because what we learn is also not our way of specifically eating a meal. Rather what, we do this not specifically how we are comfortable. One must know. Again, we must make it they should be comfortable. One can’t just sew. What is figuring out how you do this? How the thing? Tasty. One thing that one certainly may not do is put a spinach at the grandfather. This is certainly not derech cheirus. I’ll buy myself such a nice hat, so… from olden times. According to the custom of our fathers. Should I sing this? Should I say my grandfather’s custom? Which grandfathers? I have such grandfathers who conducted themselves so. Hello, you went somewhere. Yes yes, I’m with you. No, you’re not. When you say so it’s with me, you’re not. By me. Where did you go? You don’t answer me. Yes, went somewhere, but try to say when you come back. It could be that the concept why one brings it after kiddush has some reason with what one brings the korban Pesach. Korban Pesach one cooks exactly at the time of the stop concept when one should start cooking the korban Pesach. After the slaughter comes the roasting, but the roasting is already yom tov or what? No, not at all. Does it mean something to Shabbos yes or no? I don’t know. Okay. Let’s go further.
Halacha 8 (Continued): Order of Bringing the Table and Karpas
Discussion About Buying Cooked Food for Pesach
Speaker 1: No, one can’t buy Pesach. One can buy cooked. Cooked.
Speaker 2: But cooked applies already yom tov or what?
Speaker 1: No, it doesn’t apply. It applies if it’s Shabbos, yes, but on yom tov no.
Speaker 2: Ah, only if it’s Shabbos.
Speaker 1: I don’t know. Okay, let’s go further.
Why an Egg on the Ke’arah? — Remembrance of Korban Chagigah
Speaker 1: And not so simple, the reason that one makes meat or egg is a remembrance of korban chagigah. Because the Rambam says that korban chagigah… No, it’s not meat. The Rambam says that perhaps it’s another thing, but egg is not meat.
But egg is some… I don’t know indeed why, because egg is not even halachically fleishig, but here we have a novelty, it’s something connected. I can tell you that it’s closer to meat than… No, a potato has nothing with meat. It’s a tavshil of… I don’t know, it’s protein. Egg is always considered in the category of meat, even if not halachically, because it’s not fleishig. It’s protein, it’s a thing that comes from a chicken. It’s a novelty that it’s not fleishig. It’s a novelty that it’s not fleishig, this doesn’t make sense.
Speaker 2: No, I don’t agree with you. Milk also comes from an animal, you know.
Speaker 1: Not correct. The milk itself that we’re talking about in the Torah always comes from an animal. It’s not a novelty that it’s not fleishig. It’s an egg. Okay, let’s go further.
Speaker 2: So? Yes. You know? Yes, did you understand everything?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: I don’t know.
The Rebbe zy”a About the Time of Roasting
Speaker 1: I see that the Rebbe zy”a says “and it’s good not to hang the meat except after six hours which is after eating the Pesach”. What does “except after six hours” mean? After six hours means from erev Pesach?
Speaker 2: No, I thought perhaps this is “at the bringing of the table,” because one just now finished the roasting, but I don’t see why. One has a whole day to roast.
Speaker 1: Yes. But I don’t know what’s the… I don’t know.
The Ke’arah Situation — When Does One Bring the Table?
Speaker 1: The ke’arah situation bothers me. One must bring a table, or what or not. How does one do this? Perhaps one brings the table only after one is notel yadayim, so it shouldn’t touch the matzah before netilas yadayim?
Wait one minute, I don’t understand something. The matzah… I don’t understand, every time, every Shabbos one brings the fingers mixed. Every Shabbos one makes kiddush before… Kiddush is before netilas yadayim, yes, but every Shabbos one brings a challah, one places it down on the table before kiddush, one covers it in honor of the… because to wait that the kiddush goes on the bread, no? There’s such a thing.
Speaker 2: Right, so what’s the… No, it doesn’t go on the bread.
Speaker 1: Why does one bring it?
Speaker 2: I don’t know.
Question: Why Does One Bring the Ke’arah with Matzah Before Kiddush?
Speaker 1: Why does one bring every time the… the ke’arah also has matzah. It says “they bring before him matzah”.
Speaker 2: Yes, they bring before him matzah. One of the things is matzah, yes.
Speaker 1: So how does one not make kiddush on the matzah? One must make kiddush on matzah, no?
Speaker 2: Strange, no?
Speaker 1: How can it be? One doesn’t need to bring the matzah when making kiddush?
I don’t understand matzah. Why do you say it says matzah? It doesn’t say. “Another vegetable and matzah and charoses”?
Speaker 2: No, it doesn’t say from yours.
Speaker 1: Yes. I thought it says it fine?
Speaker 2: No, it says maror and matzah?
Speaker 1: It’s strange then. No? Not strange? Or yes?
Apparently, every time we make kiddush on the matzah. One must look, just in the Gemara it says this exactly. Let’s see. Why does one every time make kiddush on the challah, on the hamotzi? Why does one bring in the challah before kiddush? I don’t know.
Speaker 2: Nu, look at it again by Shabbos.
Speaker 1: I want to see in here where “mevi’in hasulchan” it says in the Gemara this language. It’s not? But yes, “mevi’in lefanav”, ah. But in the Mishnah it says that one brings it after netilat yadayim. That’s what the Mishnah says. Let’s go look now.
Looking in the Mishnah — The Order of Bringing the Table
Speaker 1: Mazgu lo kos rishon… hevi’u lefanav…
It’s not so clear. But yes, it says in the Mishnah. I thought it says. In the Mishnah it says, “mazgu lo kos”, and the next one says “hevi’u lefanav”. “Hevi’u lefanav” does it say matzah?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: “Hevi’u lefanav matbel bachazeret”. “Hevi’u lefanav hayerakot”, so says Rashi on the spot. So the next thing after kos rishon one begins talking about the… ah, “hevi’u lefanav matbel bachazeret ad shemagia lefarperet hapat”, and after that “hevi’u lefanav matzah vachazeret vacharoset”.
Innovation: The Rambam Changed the Order from the Mishnah
Speaker 1: Interesting. In the Mishnah it looks like one brings the matzah after finishing the karpas. Here it says that one brings it before the karpas. Yes? Yes? In the order of the Mishnah it looks like one brings the table of maror and matzah with meat after the karpas. And the Rambam looks like one brings it after Kiddush before karpas. And the Mishnah says, yes, mazgu lo kos sheni, the next Mishnah, vehevi’u lefanav, he brings karpas. And here it says hevi’u lefanav matzah vachazeret ushnei tavshilin. The Rambam looks like he switched the order, and one brings karpas together with the, yes, veyarok acher. That means one brings once, one brings the karpas with everything. It’s interesting, he changed the order from the Mishnah. One needs to know why the Mishnah says it this way, and why…
Tosafot: One Doesn’t Bring the Table Until After Kiddush
Speaker 1: Ah, I see Tosafot on the page says, hevi’u lefanav, says the Rashbam, means vegetables for karpas, ve’ein nir’eh, rather hevi’u lefanav means one brings the whole table, she’ein mevi’in hasulchan ad achar hakiddush. But why? Why shouldn’t one bring the table before Kiddush? I don’t know.
Clarification: There Is No Law That One Must Bring Challah Before Kiddush
Speaker 1: Obviously, there is no such law that one must bring the challah before Kiddush on Shabbat. There is a law, if one brings it one must cover it, but… there is no law that one must, yes. If one brings the challah after Kiddush it’s good, so it seems apparently.
Obviously, Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim, what is such a thing? Perhaps it comes from this? The Rema says generally the thing that one must bring on Shabbat and one must cover the challah. There is no such law that the Rambam says before Kiddush, page 270. He doesn’t say properly. He doesn’t say when one must bring it.
No, it doesn’t say that one must cover it, that one must bring it. Purat’s Mapah says about this, that one has strongly argued about it. Yes, if one holds in the middle of the meal. Purat’s Mapah various places. Okay, so then it’s simple. It already says a whole year one goes being concerned how the order is.
Innovation: Why on Pesach Night One Doesn’t Bring Matzah Before Kiddush
Perhaps This Is Indeed the Matter
Speaker 1: Perhaps this is indeed the matter, because every Shabbat one can decide whether one wants to make Kiddush on wine or on bread. On Pesach one doesn’t have this option. One wants that the person should remember he doesn’t have this option. So on the table there is only wine, because now the mitzvah of wine is a different type of mitzvah. But otherwise the person would have thought that it’s like every Shabbat, and he could have made Kiddush on the matzah. There would have been a whole disaster. Not a bad explanation.
Speaker 2: Every Shabbat both lie on the table, and he can decide which one he takes.
Speaker 1: I don’t know why he can’t. He just needs to make four cups.
Speaker 2: No, but tonight one can’t, because one begins, first of all, because on the… there are four cups, and there is an order, and it will disturb your order. There are arba kosot of wine. If you make Kiddush on bread, you now have to throw out the whole order. Now one will need to ask a rabbi how the order is fresh. Okay, it’s a good explanation?
Speaker 1: Okay, maybe.
Law 8 — Karpas
Speaker 1: Okay, matchil umvarech. I skipped over section 2. Matchil umvarech borei pri ha’adamah. One minute. Matchil… matchil… here one begins the order. That means, until now it was Kiddush, now begins the… the language matchil…
What Does “Matchil” Mean?
Speaker 1: Originally I mean, matchil means first one takes it, and after that one says the blessing. Not that one says the blessing and after that one takes it. Is that what this means? I don’t know. Do you know? Do you know? I don’t know.
The Law of Karpas
Speaker 1: Mevarech borei pri ha’adamah. Veyikach yarok veyitbol oto bacharoset, ve’ochel kazayit hu vechol hamesubin imo. Confirmed. You see by mevi’in kos lecholeh beShabbat, he said clearly,
Law 8 (Continued): Removing the Table, Mah Nishtanah, and Raising Matzah and Maror
Precise Language in the Rambam: Singular and Plural
Speaker 1: Do you know? I don’t know. One makes borei pri ha’adamah.
Speaker 2: Velokei’ach yarok umatbel oto bacharoset, ve’ochel kazayit hu vechol hamesubin imo.
Speaker 1: Ah, you see that he is precise. You see, by “mevi’in kos lechol echad ve’echad” he said clearly. By netilat yadayim he only said language of singular. And here further, each one eats. So one can see here that the Rambam has very good precise distinctions between what the ba’al habayit does and what the whole group does. One can be precise in his words, yes? “Mevi’in kos lechol echad ve’echad” he didn’t say that each one must say the blessings, one hears from the ba’al habayit, and it’s enough that only the ba’al habayit is notel yadayim. And here he already says, each one eats, “vechol hamesubin imo”, kol echad ve’echad, because one eats less than a kazayit.
Okrin et HaShulchan – Only from the One Reading the Haggadah
Speaker 2: Ve’achar kach okrin et hashulchan milifnei korei haHagadah levado. One removes the table only from the one who is reading the Haggadah.
Speaker 1: Doesn’t everyone have a table?
Speaker 2: No, apparently only he received a table, from him one can only remove his table.
Speaker 1: That’s what the Gemara says, “milifnei korei haHagadah levado”. That’s the Haggadah that we spoke about earlier, yes.
Speaker 2: See, the Rambam himself says here that we have shulchanot gedolot, we have large tables, and it’s enough that hagbahat hasal.
Discussion: Why Only from the One Reading the Haggadah?
Speaker 1: But why is the Rambam precise “milifnei korei haHagadah levado”, and the Lechem Mishneh, “ein okrin ela milifnei mi she’omer haHagadah”? Rabbeinu mevi’a ke’arah milifnei mi she’omer haHagadah.
Speaker 2: That’s what the Gemara says.
Speaker 1: What’s interesting is, why, does everyone have a table?
Speaker 2: It looks like yes. Perhaps it’s only on the main table… ah, perhaps this is indeed the point, because only the ba’al habayit has on the table the whole ke’arah with all things, for that one removes it. All others only have a piece of table to be able to make themselves comfortable, to be able to lay down the Haggadah and eat the piece of karpas. Okrin et hashulchan is so that the child should ask. No, that’s not what it says in the Gemara. The child should ask, okay, perhaps for that, there should be a change, there should be… this makes it puzzling, why specifically from the head of household one removes the table.
Speaker 1: Ve’achar kach okrin et hashulchan milifnei korei haHagadah levado. It could be that we fulfill okrin et hashulchan with covering the matzah, grabbing afikoman. The Rav held, God forbid, you say that this is not the order of the table, but he held that he fulfills it with removing the piece of matzah.
Mozgin HaKos Sheni – The Son’s Question
Speaker 2: Okay. Umozgin hakos sheni, vechan haben sho’el. Here one can ask out children. Ve’omer hakorei mah nishtanah halailah hazeh mikol haleilot, shebechol haleilot anu matbilin afilu pa’am achat. One must eat a kazayit from the karpas, it’s very correct. Ah, vechulu mesubin, ah, ein ochlin afilu pachot mikazayit. And also one makes borei pri ha’adamah. Ah, that’s certain, yes, on the maror later.
The Rambam rules that if there is a mitzvah, it’s like every time a measure of eating there is no less than a kazayit. If it’s not exactly a mitzvah, it’s only something a preparation for maror or a preparation for the children’s questions.
Who Says Mah Nishtanah?
Speaker 1: Umozgin hakos sheni, vechan haben sho’el, ve’omer hakorei. It’s not that the child begins asking. Kan haben sho’el, whatever the child can ask, as we already had earlier, each child according to his situation, what his wisdom. Ve’omer hakorei, it means that besides what the child asks, one should still say the language, it looks like.
It looks like the ben sho’el is not only with the language, but what one has taught him to ask. Right, ben sho’el, whatever he asks. But after that there should still be a question of the traditional text, the four questions. It looks like, one can even say, but specifically not the child should be the one who asks the mah nishtanah, but hakorei, the one reading the Haggadah is the one who says the mah nishtanah. And what are the questions of tonight at the seder?
It’s just interesting that one shouldn’t make it in the manner of question and answer, that one should ask from the reader. It would have been a better play, that the reader of the Haggadah sits and someone asks him, and he answers him word for word. But here it says that the reader himself is the one who asks.
The Five Questions (In the Time of the Temple)
First Question: Dipping
Speaker 2: “Mah nishtanah halailah hazeh mikol haleilot, shebechol haleilot anu matbilin pa’am achat, vehalailah hazeh shtei pe’amim.” Yes, that’s the first. Shebechol haleilot anu… it makes sense because one has already dipped once. Yes, at the seder it’s not asked the… one asks this the first question. One has now finished eating karpas.
Second Question: Matzah
The second question is, “shebechol haleilot anu ochlin chametz umatzah, vehalailah hazeh kulo matzah.”
Third Question: Roasted
The third question, “shebechol haleilot anu ochlin basar tzali shaluk umevushal, vehalailah hazeh kulo tzali.” It’s interesting, we haven’t yet said… okay, we already know, we haven’t said clearly that the law is that one shouldn’t… that the night shouldn’t have any shaluk umevushal. Ah, it means further, when there is korban Pesach. Okay.
Fourth Question: Maror
“Shebechol haleilot anu ochlin she’ar yerakot, vehalailah hazeh maror.”
Fifth Question: Reclining
“Shebechol haleilot anu ochlin bein yoshvin uvein mesubin, vehalailah hazeh kulanu mesubin.” It’s interesting, “kulanu mesubin”. “Kulanu mesubin” means each one, or does it mean one is the whole night in reclining? Because the Rambam said earlier only certain times there is a need for reclining. Okay. “Kulanu” doesn’t mean the whole night, “kulanu” means all of us. Yes, yes, all of us.
Ah, “bein yoshvin uvein mesubin” means like this, the more important ones… at every meal there are yoshvim and mesubin. The slave, the woman who they sit, and the mesubin. Vehalailah hazeh, all sit mesubin.
Speaker 1: Very good. Like even the poorest of Israel. Even the poorest of Israel, that’s the innovation. Very good. Usually the poor person doesn’t sit reclining, and tonight each one must sit reclining. About this there is the question. Very good.
Discussion: Why “Kulo Tzali” If It’s Not Only Roasted?
One says, vehalailah hazeh kulo tzali, why she’eino nikrav. It has nothing to do with it itself.
Speaker 2: No, it was said mevi’in shnei minei basar, but a guest, the meat is not necessarily roasted. No, I say the meat that the Rambam said earlier that one didn’t say roasted, so one brings anyway, sometimes it’s roasted, sometimes it’s shaluk or mevushal, so one can’t say halailah hazeh kulo tzali.
Matchil Bigenut – Until the End of Arami Oved Avi
Speaker 1: Umatchil bigenut, vekorei ad sheyigmor derash parashat Arami oved avi kulah, until one finishes the part of the Haggadah that expounds the verses of Arami oved avi. That means, until one finishes completely one is still in the genui territory, one is still busy with genui. It looks like in the end that the matter is that the table shouldn’t be there when one speaks of genui, shelo yir’eh pat bevishto, because now one goes back to bring, machzirin hashulchan lefanav. So until one finishes the genui the table has gone away.
Matchil bigenut umesayem beshevach. Yes, but as long as it’s genui there isn’t the table there. He says, here one begins. This is the third matchil by the way, you’re standing here, you notice? Here there are many beginnings. Generally beginnings are difficult. He says here, techilah mevi’in lefanav, matchil umagbi’ah et hake’arah, umatchil bigenut. He begins the Haggadah, that’s the main thing.
What is the order indeed the beginning of the whole year, Rosh Hashanah mikra’ei kodesh, as the holy Rabbi Aharon of Karlin said. He says here an order, an order, an order. That’s the matchil. He also says that it has to do with counting, one counts, one recounts.
Machzirin HaShulchan – Pesach, Maror, Matzah
Speaker 2: Okay, and after that he brings, ve’omer Pesach zeh she’anu ochlin al shum shepasach HaKadosh Baruch Hu al batei avoteinu beMitzrayim, shene’emar va’amartem zevach Pesach hu laHashem. And here he says on Pesach he doesn’t say a hagbahah. Only on maror he says “magbi’ah maror beyado”. Okay, it’s too big to lift. Right. What becomes contradictory, one says one brings the whole animal at once. I really don’t know.
What do the righteous say about this thing? They don’t want, they are happy.
By the way, it’s not relevant to the korban that one dips in charoset. He brings a bunch of Rishonim on this.
Speaker 1: Yes, but he brings so many Rishonim, ba’alei haTosafot, all had different… if not this, says Rabbi Yechiel, okay.
Ah, and by the way, he also argues about the kazayit of karpas, just a gedolah kol shehi, what the Chinuch lashon hara has an answer.
Discussion: Why Hagbahah by Maror and Not by Pesach?
But what is indeed the matter that the maror one must lift, and he didn’t say it on the meat? What is the matter that the meat he didn’t say to lift, and on the maror he said to lift?
Speaker 2: Okay, we can hear that the Pesach is indeed a large piece, there lies a large object, it lies, everyone sees it. The maror is a small leaf, or something a small maror in a small plate. One knows it, one doesn’t see it so obviously.
Speaker 1: Okay. And so also he says on the matzah, “magbi’ah maror, magbi’ah matzah”. The Rishonim here add immediately, I mean the commentators here add immediately that in the Haggadah the order is first one lifts the matzah. And so it should be, because matzah is indeed the main mitzvah. They say that it’s not necessarily so. So they say, he has something from the Mishnah, and… what? He says something about instead, let’s see him. So…
Law 8 (Continued): Text of the Haggadah, Blessing of “Asher Ge’alanu”, and Prayer for Redemption
The Rambam’s Text: “Pesach, Merorim, Matzah”
Speaker 1: The maror is a small leaf or something small, and a small plate, and one knows it, one doesn’t see it, it’s not obvious.
Okay. So things with the matzah, magbi’ah maror, magbi’ah matzah. The Rishonim here add immediately, I mean the commentators add immediately that in the Haggadah the order is first one lifts the matzah, and so it should be because matzah is indeed the main mitzvah. The Rambam is not necessarily so. So he says, he has something…
Explanation of Chatam Sofer / Rabbi Avraham Av Beit Din: Maror Is Connected to Pesach
The Chatam Sofer… what? He says some explanation… let’s see. That what? The Rambam earlier also said “Pesach, merorim, matzah”. So the Rambam also had in chapter 7, the Gemara had a different text there, but he also says “Pesach, merorim, matzah”. And he says because apparently very good, because there are indeed two marors, we just learned now. Maror comes indeed together with Pesach. Unlike matzah which is a different matzah, not the matzah that comes together with Pesach. Therefore Pesach and maror go together, do you understand? Maror comes indeed… so the matter is to have a maror on the other… ah, therefore the maror is connected after the Pesach.
Speaker 2: Why does it say differently in the Mishnah?
Speaker 1: Okay, the Rambam understood it this way. He says some explanation on this also, let’s see. He says some explanation on this also. No, he says that it agrees with the text of the Rav. Says the Rabbeinu Manoach that in the text of the Rav himself later it indeed says the order first matzah. In the order of the Haggadah. But it could be because it makes sense, because we don’t do the maror of the Pesach.
Speaker 2: Ah, you mean to say essentially it should have been this way, because it’s dragged along after.
Speaker 1: Because the Rambam writes here indeed kulo, at the time when the Temple existed, perhaps then they made it in this order indeed, the maror would have come together with the… do you understand what I’m saying? But today when one does differently, because today it has a different importance, as if matzah is more important because it’s from the Torah.
Speaker 2: Ah, right. At the time of the Temple it was matzah, maror from the Torah, maror is connected with Pesach. Right?
Speaker 1: Yes. Makes very good sense. That’s Rabbi Avraham Av Beit Din’s explanation, it’s a very nice explanation.
Speaker 2: Why aren’t you so happy with it?
Text “Matzah Zo She’anu Ochlim” and “Pesach Shehayu Ochlim”
Speaker 1: Okay. “This matzah that we eat, for what reason?” And he lifts the matzah in his hand and says: “This matzah,” yes, what does he say? He says from here. “He lifts the matzah in his hand and says: ‘This matzah that we eat, for what reason? Because the dough of our fathers did not have time to become leavened before the King of Kings of Kings, the Holy One Blessed Be He, revealed Himself to them and redeemed them, as it is stated: “And they baked the dough which they brought out of Egypt into cakes of matzot, for it had not leavened, because they were driven out of Egypt and could not delay, and they had also not prepared provisions for themselves.”‘ In this time he should say,” in this time is the time that we are now holding by Pesach, “the Pesach that our fathers used to eat at the time when the Temple was standing, for what reason? Because the Holy One Blessed Be He passed over the houses of our fathers in Egypt.” He doesn’t say “that we eat,” yes.
Speaker 2: He doesn’t say “at the time when the Temple was standing,” he says “at the time when the Temple stands.”
The Text of “Therefore We Are Obligated to Thank”
Speaker 1: Okay, and after that he says, what does he say? “Therefore we are obligated to thank, to praise, to laud, to glorify, to exalt, to honor, to bless, and to acclaim.” Take, yes, the expressions of praise, “the One who performed for us and for our fathers.”
Speaker 2: By me it says: to thank, to praise, to laud, to glorify, to bless, to exalt, to honor, to acclaim. By me it doesn’t say our fathers.
Speaker 1: By me it says to exalt, to honor, to bless, to acclaim in his version.
Speaker 2: Yes, I don’t know, I go with my version.
Speaker 1: Do however it works for you.
“The One who performed for us,” in short, “the One who performed for us and for our fathers.”
Speaker 2: By me it doesn’t say any our fathers.
Speaker 1: Yes, no, here he brings for us and for our fathers, and manuscript Aleph Kuf is here one word zo. “All these miracles.”
Speaker 2: It’s quite good, the “for us” I understand what it is with the “to exclude himself from the community,” he left Egypt.
Speaker 1: No, “He brought us out from slavery to freedom.”
Speaker 2: From slavery to freedom, from sorrow to joy, and from mourning to festival, and from darkness to great light, and from servitude to redemption.
Speaker 1: Ah, all these, he leaves out all these expressions. The Rambam says so, that we must have it, and now we look in our Haggadah, “and let us say before Him Halleluyah.”
“And Let Us Say Before Him Halleluyah” — Beginning of Hallel
“And let us say before Him” – we begin to say, “and let us say before Him Halleluyah, praise, servants of Hashem, until He turns the flint into a fountain of water.” We begin to say, what does it say? “And let us say before Him Halleluyah Halleluyah.” No, I already said it. So the Rambam does it like this, “and let us say before Him” and we say Hallel, the first two pieces of Hallel.
Speaker 2: Ah, “and let us say before Him” is now we’re going to say, no?
Speaker 1: Yes yes, according to Chinuch Lanaar, yes. One is obligated to do so and say so. “And he concludes” – and you see indeed as I have now finished saying, and we indeed say the entire Hallel. It’s a bit interesting that we were told to say, and ah, I have now indeed said it, and “and let us say,” we will say.
Speaker 2: Ah, “and let us say before Him praise, servants of Hashem,” okay, very good.
The Blessing of “Who Redeemed Us and Redeemed Our Fathers”
Speaker 1: “And he concludes Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe,” and we say, and we conclude, the conclusion of the Haggadah is “Who redeemed us and redeemed our fathers from Egypt.” The Haggadah and the Hallel, yes, is “Who redeemed us and redeemed our fathers,” yes. But also, we begin with “redeemed us,” interesting, “and redeemed our fathers from Egypt.” “And brought us to this night.” “This night” it says by me. “To this night” it says here in his version.
Speaker 2: Who?
Speaker 1: Not me, I don’t have Frenkel anymore, I have an English one.
Speaker 2: Yes, it’s still fake.
Speaker 1: I know, I need to look in Rav Sherira’s notes. I have a Jerusalem edition, I need to look, I have it there, this is a printed version. Anyway, Rav Sherira says “the night.” Ah, yes.
Speaker 2: “And let us say before Him Halleluyah.”
Speaker 1: And we say further, he says that Rabbeinu Saadia himself says “the night” in the Mishnah. It’s different, it translates differently the word “and brought us.” “And brought us to this night,” or “and brought us” has brought us.
Speaker 2: Eh, the same thing basically.
Speaker 1: Ah, the Master of the Universe has brought us to this night. Brought us to eat.
“To Eat Matzah and Maror” — Maror in Plural
“To eat matzah and maror.” The Rambam holds that it says matzah and maror, because maror is anyway always plural, there is no singular maror.
Speaker 2: Aha.
Speaker 1: Seemingly by the blessing he also says so, “on eating maror.” How does his blessing go? We would need to see.
Speaker 2: Yes, he says “on eating matzah and maror” he says when he says the…
Speaker 1: Yes, but not when he makes a maror alone.
Speaker 2: Ah, a maror alone is “on eating maror.”
Speaker 1: Aha. We see that the marorim refers to “they shall eat it with matzot and marorim,” the marorim of the Korban Pesach. That the maror is maror alone. This is a novelty that we see here.
Addition “In This Time”: Prayer for Redemption
“In this time he adds ‘Bring us, Hashem our God,’” that one doesn’t need to pray for an actual redemption, one says “Bring us, Hashem our God, to other festivals and holidays,” but then it should already be in completeness, it should be “rejoicing in the building of Your city and joyful in Your service, to eat.” It’s very interesting, because until now we haven’t seen, it was a whole joy. One must make oneself, one must be in joy. When there will be the redemption, then there will be truly rejoicing and joyful. Until then one makes oneself, one tries one’s best. “Rejoicing in the building of Your city and joyful in Your service, to eat.”
“And we shall eat there from the offerings and from the Pesach sacrifices.” Does it say “and we shall eat there” by you? Here next to me it says “and we shall eat there,” yes.
Speaker 2: By me it says “to eat.”
Speaker 1: Ah, “to eat.” What does he say one should say? It’s “bring us” goes up to the “to eat.” “Bring us to eat,” as if. “To eat from the offerings and from the Pesach sacrifices.” The offerings are seemingly the chagigah, yes? And one eats first the offerings, one eats Pesach al hasova, one eats first meat. “Whose blood shall reach the wall of Your altar favorably.”
Precision: “Wall of Your Altar” — Hint to the Ke’arah
It’s an interesting expression “wall of Your altar.” Why does one say here “wall of Your altar”? One sprinkles on top of the altar. One should have said “wall of the altar.”
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: No, “wall” hints to ke’arah.
Speaker 2: Okay, it’s in the verse.
Speaker 1: It’s the language of the verse, but why was this taken here?
Speaker 2: Okay, others interpret that “wall” hints to the ke’arah, and “Your altar” is the letters maror, zeroa, beitzah, charoset. Do you know about this? Karpas, mizbecha.
Speaker 1: You’ll know now. My father says it every year. Kir hints to the ke’arah, mizbecha is maror, zeroa, beitzah, charoset, karpas. It fits, nice. Favorably.
“And We Shall Thank You with a New Song” — New Song in the Future
“And we shall thank You with a new song on our redemption and on the liberation of our souls.” Then, precisely then one must indeed say a new song. But what is it that we are accustomed to say the song of David? The old song. The previous song. Or not from David, it’s even earlier than David, but… a new song, “on our redemption and on the liberation of our souls.” But one must indeed make then… then one must indeed make a new Hallel. I don’t know who, there must be a whole Torah who makes it, the Ashkenazic, or the Sephardic, or the Lithuanian.
“On our redemption and on the liberation of our souls, Blessed are You, Hashem, Who redeemed Israel, and Blessed are You, Hashem, Who redeemed us.” One, seemingly the Blessed are You, Hashem, Who redeemed Israel one says also in this time, right?
Speaker 2: What? The Blessed are You, Hashem, Who redeemed Israel, that is…
Speaker 1: Has redeemed.
Speaker 2: No, no, that speaks of Egypt. Redeemed from Egypt.
Speaker 1: Ah, and in the future to come one will say it…
Speaker 2: One said in the time of the Temple as a remembrance… only that piece stands until the redemption of captives one said.
Discussion: Joy in This Time vs. in the Future
Speaker 1: But in the future to come, my Torah is, in this time one makes oneself happy, and then it will be truly from where. What one sees one hasn’t seen, one has seen to show himself as if he left, to show the way of freedom. Then one will be truly happy, and then one won’t need to make…
Speaker 2: But yet to show is also in the time of redemption. It doesn’t say that it’s an obligation in the time of redemption.
Speaker 1: Then it won’t fall out to show, because it will be truly happy. When one is truly happy, one won’t show anything.
Speaker 2: Yes… okay, no problem.
“Bring Us to Other Festivals and Holidays” — What Does It Mean?
Speaker 1: What does it mean “that You have brought us from now and forever”? Does it mean that there will happen new holidays, or does it mean the same holidays new, as if more of the same holidays that we already have? I mean that the simple meaning of Scripture means the next holiday, it means even Shavuot. Like Shehecheyanu, one thanks the Almighty that I have arrived until here, and one asks the Almighty that the next holiday should already be a redemption. Like that. Next time it shouldn’t be anymore with the fake that you say, next time one will indeed make a Korban Pesach.
Speaker 2: Very good. One won’t eat the rabbinic maror, the rabbinic maror.
Speaker 1: So it could be that this is perhaps the matter that the first kiddush, it doesn’t make sense that there should be meat that reminds of Korban Pesach and one should make kiddush and one should now thank the Almighty. It’s a terrible thing.
Law 8 (Continued): Second Cup, Second Hand Washing, Yachatz, and Koreich
Second Cup
Speaker 1:
Means simply, next holiday should already be the redemption, like it says “next year in Jerusalem,” that sort of thing. Next time one should no longer be with that package, as you say. Next time one will indeed make a Korban Pesach.
One won’t eat the rabbinic maror, one will eat the Torah maror. It could be that this is perhaps the matter that the first kiddush… It doesn’t make sense that there should be meat that reminds of Korban Pesach and one should make a kiddush, and one should now thank the Almighty with a terrible pain. Why does one remove the table before the first kiddush? Because by the second kiddush there is already the meat! One speaks about the meat! “Ben Shofer,” look, I will, I’m already bringing the redemption, that one should after midnight be able to bring real meat.
Chassidic Torah? A little one waits with the good things, yes. No, I’m waiting for the table, for removing the table. And here one can already leave the table, because by this kiddush one indeed mentions the sacrifices. Okay. When one speaks this piece, one can already say that it’s Torah, because everything is Torah. This is indeed the work of the Haggadah, it’s Torah. Not weaker Torah than the Haggadah.
Speaker 2:
Yes, yes, true, true.
Speaker 1:
Okay. Let’s go further. Yes, we’re holding here in the Haggadah, holding here page… “Who creates the fruit of the vine,” not “on the vine,” he means to say “Who creates the fruit of the vine” from today. “And drinks the second cup,” yes. End of chapter 9. “Who creates the fruit of the vine and drinks the second cup,” yes.
Something comes to check the second cup. The second cup. Need to check, just a moment, need to check how much time it is. Ah, means until the Haggadah, one is holding already in the second half of the paragraph. Ah, means until… ah, only one is holding here, yes, yes, let’s have still sure time. Until section 4. Section 4? I’ll see what’s here? It’s still a law, “A place where they were accustomed to eat roasted,” other laws, yes.
Second Hand Washing
Speaker 1:
Okay, let’s see. “And after that he blesses on washing hands,” and washes his hands a second time. Second time. Why? It’s… where does it say here the source? Already, I need to check this. I didn’t reckon with this. My Torah was just thought out, because because because one says the things, ah yes, it’s still returning the table, the table lies yes there.
No, I thought earlier that perhaps not having the table has to do with washing hands, the things shouldn’t become impure, but not necessarily, because here it doesn’t say that one removes again the table before the second washing of hands. I thought earlier that perhaps removing the table has something to do with water washing hands, but it doesn’t look like that, because here is again blessing washing hands, and the table lies there.
Ah, one washes his hands a second time. Why must one indeed interrupt concentration during the reading of the Haggadah? This interruption of concentration was means from the cleanliness of the hands. And therefore two wafers, two matzot.
Yachatz — Breaking the Matzah
Why Two Matzot?
Speaker 1:
Why does it fall out? Ah, yes. Why does one push to the wafers? I mean because he wants to say here, first let’s take care of the lechem mishneh. “He divides one of them and places the broken piece inside the whole one.” Now, one reckons, he says that one does right still before the blessing. Yachatz, yes. We do yachatz before Maggid. He was stringent yachatz before Maggid. Interesting.
“And blesses Hamotzi lechem.” “He divides one of them and places the broken piece inside the whole one.” It’s interesting, when one has soft matzot I understand that it’s “inside the whole one,” as it’s turned, one takes it around with the whole one. But it doesn’t look like that, because “wafers” also means crackers, “wafers” means hard matzot, it’s not a problem.
“And blesses Hamotzi lechem from the earth.” “One doesn’t say the blessing of two loaves like other holidays, only on eating matzah one blessing. Just as bread of affliction is with a broken piece, so too here with a broken piece.”
But why two? Why should one… why what? Why… it’s indeed yes here a whole one also. Why doesn’t one say one is enough, that it should be the matter of affliction? Only half or… yes, if there is a matter of a broken piece both should be broken.
What is the answer? I don’t have an answer meanwhile. I want indeed bread of affliction, not the whole thing. But it’s… aha.
It could be also bread of affliction, meaning with that that one doesn’t add anything, it’s not rich matzah, only it’s bread of affliction. Why does the Torah fall out of affliction and broken piece? One wants perhaps with this also to hint the matter of Egypt or something? I say bread of affliction, meaning with that which one doesn’t put any spices, with that which it’s not rich matzah. No, only there is perhaps a matter that just as a poor person, that one should remember that one was poor, or one should remember that the matzah was in the way of affliction.
Koreich Matzah and Maror
Text of the Blessing — “Matzah” or “Matzot”?
Speaker 1:
And after that he wraps matzah and maror together and dips in charoset, one dips in the entire set one dips in charoset, or perhaps he means the maror from it? I don’t know, he doesn’t say clearly. And “Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us on eating matzah and marorim.” Why is matzot? One eats only one piece of matzah.
Second. Hello? Yes. Yes. Okay. The matter is like this, I’m going away from here, one isn’t busy with the Almighty, one is a whole day busy with service of Hashem. But about this indeed it says in the Torah the differences of laws. Very good. I’m going… yes, it’s already longer than the whole hour. Okay.
Speaker 2:
“Matzah and marorim” it says by me. You say by you it says “matzot and marorim”?
Speaker 1:
Ah, he says so to you nonsense. Okay, I know. It’s only that it should fit with the language of the verse “with matzot and marorim they shall eat it,” on eating matzot and marorim. Okay.
“They Would Eat Separately”
Speaker 1:
“They would eat separately.” One makes separate blessings on eating matzah, eating matzah by itself, maror by itself. Why does he say “they would eat”? Why is this an option? Yes, he says “he wraps matzah and maror.” That’s what one does. One doesn’t have to. That’s what it says here. I mean that you want… what do you want from the simple meaning? About looking in the commentators? He already found out. And here it says so that one doesn’t have to.
First of all, one should have said “they would eat,” not “they would eat.” One needs to write it in past tense, right? But it’s the same thing, it’s only a way of writing if that one did so.
One needs to understand the sugya there of koreich. It’s indeed a dispute of Hillel. The servants also ate separately.
Blessings on Chagigah and Pesach — In the Time of the Temple
“From the Meat of the Chagigah” Versus “From the Body of the Pesach”
Speaker 1:
So, first of all, “he blesses ‘Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us on eating the offering,’ and eats from the meat of the chagigah first. And after that he blesses ‘Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us on eating the Pesach,’ and eats from the body of the Pesach.” The order usually says the word “body of the Pesach.” It’s an interesting expression, “from the body of the Pesach lamb.” What is the difference? “Body” and “lamb”? I don’t know. Meat of the chagigah he says “from the meat,” and here he says “from the body of.” He doesn’t say “from the meat of the Pesach.”
“And the blessing of the Pesach doesn’t exempt that of the offering, and that of the offering doesn’t exempt that of the Pesach, because this is a commandment by itself and this is a commandment by itself.” Very good.
In This Time — Order of Eating
Matzah in Charoset
Speaker 1:
“In this time, when we don’t have a sacrifice, after he blesses ‘Hamotzi lechem,’ he returns and blesses ‘on eating matzah,’ and dips matzah in charoset and eats.” Interesting thing, everything one dips. “He returns and blesses ‘on eating maror,’ and dips maror in charoset and eats, and he shouldn’t leave it in the charoset, lest he nullify its taste.” This is the first time that one sees that it must have some taste, it must have sharpness. “And this is a commandment from the words of the Sages,” that it should be sharp. No, a maror. Ah, the whole matzah maror, aha. “And he returns and wraps matzah and maror and dips in charoset and eats them without a blessing, as a remembrance of the Temple.”
And After That He Continues with the Meal
Speaker 1:
“And after that he continues with the meal,” he means to say continues with the meal, yes. Continues means he is drawn in. He writes it like “he eats all that he wants to eat and drinks all that he wants to drink.” Like it says in the Haggadah, he lets himself enjoy. Ah, yes, enjoy. “He eats all that he wants to eat and drinks all that he wants to drink.”
Afikoman — Taste of the Meat of the Pesach / Matzah
Speaker 1:
And at the end he eats from the meat of the Pesach offering at least a kezayis (olive-sized portion), and he does not taste any other food after it at all. In this time one does instead of this eating a kezayis of matzah and does not taste anything after it. So that he should conclude his meal with the taste of the meat of the Pesach offering and the matzah, explicitly that their eating, what does it say here, that their eating is the mitzvah? Ah, their eating, the essence of the mitzvah of the night is the eating, the eating is a matzah or a Pesach offering. One wants to show with this that it is more important than the eating whatever he wants. Yes, he said earlier eating whatever he wants, but the essential mitzvah of the night is not your whatever, but the mitzvah itself, the eating a mitzvah. The mitzvah is this.
Third Cup, Fourth Cup, and Fifth Cup
Third Cup — Birkas HaMazon (Grace After Meals)
Speaker 1:
And after that he washes his hands, mayim acharonim (final waters), yes. And he recites Birkas HaMazon over the third cup and drinks it. After bentching (saying Grace After Meals).
Fourth Cup — Completion of Hallel
Speaker 1:
And after that he pours the fourth cup and completes on it the Hallel and says on it Birkas HaShir (the blessing of song), and it is, the Birkas HaShir is “Yehalelucha Hashem Elokeinu kol ma’asecha” (All Your works shall praise You, Lord our God) etc. which he will bring later. And he does not taste after this anything all night, except, he already said earlier one may not, and he however said that one drinks however the two cups. Ah, except for the two cups one does not drink anything except water.
Fifth Cup — Hallel HaGadol (Optional)
Speaker 1:
And he may pour a fifth cup and say on it Hallel HaGadol (the Great Hallel). That means he may. Ah, “yesh lo” (he may), he may, and say on it Hallel HaGadol. This is not the cup of Eliyahu (Elijah). And it is “Hodu LaHashem ki tov” (Give thanks to the Lord for He is good).
Speaker 2:
You mean not the cup of Eliyahu? This is not the one that one drinks. Now we’re talking about drinking a fifth cup.
Speaker 1:
Okay.
“Hodu LaHashem ki tov, until Al naharos Bavel” (By the rivers of Babylon). The entire chapter is here.
Speaker 2:
Ah, one chapter.
Speaker 1:
Yes. And all this is not an obligation like the four cups.
Law 8 (Conclusion): Fifth Cup, Hallel HaGadol, and the Cup of Eliyahu
Speaker 1:
But there are those who say yes, and they say on it Hallel HaGadol, and this is the cup of Eliyahu, and it is “Hodu LaHashem ki tov” until “Al naharos Bavel”. And all this is not an obligation like the four cups.
He says, And there are those who say to complete the Hallel in any place that he wants. The completion of Hallel is not such an important part of the seder that one should only be able to do it there, but one can do it anyway, even if it is not the place of the meal. One can go to the Rebbe’s tisch (table) and do the Hallel HaGadol according to halacha.
Speaker 2:
Okay, wonderful. Yasher koach (well done).