📋 Shiur Overview
Summary of the Chavrusa Learning: Rambam Hilchos Chametz U’Matzah, Chapter 7 — The Haggadah
—
A) “Even if all of us are wise, all of us understanding, all of us know the Torah — we are commanded to tell about the Exodus from Egypt, and whoever elaborates in telling about the Exodus from Egypt is praiseworthy”
The Rambam’s words: “Even if all of us are wise, all of us understanding, all of us know the Torah — we are commanded to tell about the Exodus from Egypt, and whoever elaborates in telling about the Exodus from Egypt is praiseworthy.”
Simple meaning: The mitzvah of telling about the Exodus from Egypt applies to everyone, even to great sages who already know everything. And whoever elaborates in it is praiseworthy.
Insights and explanations:
1. The essence of the mitzvah is “from generation to generation”: The mitzvah of telling about the Exodus from Egypt is primarily made for the next generations — for those who don’t know. The verse “ki yishalcha bincha machar” — “machar” doesn’t mean tomorrow, but rather “for generations” (as the Midrash says), because “ki lo hayita sham” — the child wasn’t there. This is the “paradigmatic case” — the normal case. The mechanism for this is that one says it once a year, every Pesach.
2. “Even if all of us are wise” — a “lo plug” principle, not a special mitzvah: When the listener already knows — he is a “yotzei min haklal.” But just like with every mitzvah in the world, when the reason for the mitzvah doesn’t apply to a specific case, one doesn’t make a special version for him. One continues with the normal procedure. This is a “great principle in Torah” — every mitzvah has its essential form (the normal case), and when an edge case occurs, it doesn’t disturb the rule. Examples: we pray for rain even when someone doesn’t need rain specifically; lulav was made with a specific form, even when the specific reason doesn’t apply. One doesn’t need to come up with deep answers (like the power of forgetting, or bringing it into the heart, or going through a measure) to explain why we say it every year.
3. “Even if all of us are wise” — how sharp is it really? “How many such sages are there, please?” — there aren’t so many sages that the entire Seder would change. If truly “all of us are wise” — everyone would be wise — there truly wouldn’t be any halachah (because the reason wouldn’t be relevant). But this isn’t the reality, and therefore the Seder remains as it is.
4. The hava amina that sages should be exempt — depends on the dispute whether telling about the Exodus is d’oraita: If telling about the Exodus isn’t a mitzvah d’oraita (but rather a rabbinic enactment), one understands the hava amina well: sages who already know everything, why do they need to say it again? But according to the Rambam’s position that telling about the Exodus is a proper mitzvah d’oraita, it’s difficult to understand what the hava amina is — a mitzvah d’oraita applies to everyone! The answer (from R’ Avraham Chadida): therefore one immediately brings the verse “lema’an tizkor” — because remembering is something one must do even if one already remembered yesterday. If telling also means remembering, then it’s clear that even sages must do it every year anew.
—
B) “And whoever elaborates in telling about the Exodus from Egypt is praiseworthy” — telling or halachos?
The Rambam’s words: “And whoever elaborates in telling about the Exodus from Egypt is praiseworthy.”
Simple meaning: Whoever elaborates in telling about the Exodus from Egypt is praiseworthy.
Insights and explanations:
1. Textual variation — “lesaper” or “hilchos haPesach”: There are different versions. The Tosefta Pesachim says “a person is obligated to engage in the laws of Pesach” — not just telling, but learning the laws of Pesach. This presents a dispute: whether “elaborates in telling” means recounting the story, or learning the laws of Pesach.
2. The Rambam’s position — literally telling: The Rambam speaks all the time about telling literally — literally recounting the story of the Exodus from Egypt. He doesn’t bring the position that “whoever elaborates in telling” includes learning the laws of Pesach. This is the Rambam’s innovation — he decided that “lesaper” means literally telling. This isn’t necessary from the language itself — “leharbos” can also mean learning halachos.
3. The laws of Pesach as part of the story: In the Torah itself (Parshas Bo) all the laws of Pesach stand in the middle of the story of the Exodus from Egypt — which shows that the laws of Pesach are a “part of the story.” By Pesach Mitzrayim the laws were before the miracle — that is, the laws are integral to the story. The one who holds “laws of Pesach” holds that this itself is the telling of the Exodus from Egypt.
4. “Each one according to his matter”: One is in the Haggadah (telling), one is in halachah, and both are a fulfillment of the mitzvah.
5. The Midrash/Gemara about “ba’alei mikra, ba’alei mishnah, ba’alei talmud” (Gemara Sanhedrin): “If he is a ba’al mikra — he should engage in Torah, Prophets and Writings; if he is a ba’al mishnah — he should engage in Mishnah, halachos and aggados; if he is a ba’al talmud — he should engage in the laws of Pesach on Pesach, Shavuos on Shavuos, Sukkos on Sukkos.” This means it depends on the level of the learner: ba’al mikra = engages in verses; ba’al mishnah = can read a Mishnah, a halachah, an aggadah; ba’al talmud = one who innovates — he goes into the depth of the laws of Pesach.
6. “Whoever elaborates” — what does “elaborates” mean? An innovation: the simple meaning (precise from the Rambam) is that there are different versions in the Haggadah — a longer and a shorter one. One fulfills with a few words, but whoever wants a longer version, this is praiseworthy. The Erugas HaBosem says that “whoever elaborates” means one must innovate something, not just repeat what one already knows — like a preacher. A counterargument: “this is praiseworthy” means specifically what you know for certain what happened — one can’t add new things that one doesn’t know.
7. [Mentioned in passing:] The Belzer Rebbe’s/Barditchover’s Torah: “Whoever elaborates in the Exodus from Egypt” — one elaborates in the going out from Egypt itself, one goes out from Egypt every year on Pesach, again and again. One must “immerse oneself” (live through) the going out from Egypt.
8. [Digression: Shabbos HaGadol drasha — pilpul or practical halachos?] The Shulchan Aruch / Magen Avraham says that at the Shabbos HaGadol drasha one should say laws and practices needed for action, not a pilpul. The answer: each one inclines according to his level — in a beis midrash of Torah scholars one says a pilpul; in a beis midrash of simple people one says practical halachos. On the night of the Seder itself it’s already too late to say practical laws of Pesach.
—
C) Remark about the Rambam’s version in the Haggadah
Innovation: The Abudraham is mentioned regarding the Rambam’s version. The Rambam didn’t write the entire Haggadah text anew himself, but rather he held to a certain seal/version, with perhaps small changes. A humorous remark: “It could simply be that he literally went and asked his mother for the order.”
—
D) “It happened that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah and Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon were reclining in Bnei Brak”
The Rambam’s words: “It happened that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah and Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon were reclining in Bnei Brak… and they were telling about the Exodus from Egypt all that night until their students came and said to them: The time for reciting the morning Shema has arrived.”
Simple meaning: A group of sages sat in Bnei Brak and occupied themselves with telling about the Exodus from Egypt the entire night until the students came to say that it’s time for the morning Shema.
Insights and explanations:
1) Who was the host in Bnei Brak?
The text doesn’t say at whose place they were — not like other stories where it says “in the court” or at whose house. One asks whether it was Rabbi Tarfon’s house or another’s, but no clear source is found.
2) What did they learn — telling, laws, or secrets?
– The Mechilta is quoted: “Not that it was specifically a group of sages engaged in the laws of Pesach, but rather they only learn testimony” — they didn’t just learn the laws of Pesach, but “testimony” (testimony of the Exodus from Egypt).
– According to the Rambam’s version where it says “Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to them” (not “Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said”), it’s implied that they were learning laws, because he said it to them in a learning context.
– R’ Yechezkel Levenstein (the Ponevezher Mashgiach) said that one can see they were engaged in Ma’aseh Merkavah — but this is rejected: the simple meaning of the Haggadah is that one tells the story of the Exodus from Egypt, not any laws and not any secrets.
– The Midrash brings that one can learn laws, aggadah, or secrets — all are part of telling about the Exodus from Egypt.
– An innovation: perhaps they spent an entire night wrestling with the sugya of telling about the Exodus at night — whether at night one must mention the Exodus from Egypt. It could be that the sugya lasted an entire night with proofs back and forth, and Chazal made a “short version.”
3) R’ Eliezer, R’ Yehoshua, R’ Tarfon, R’ Elazar ben Azariah — masters of halachah; R’ Akiva — engaged in Kabbalah
R’ Eliezer, R’ Yehoshua, R’ Tarfon, R’ Elazar ben Azariah are apparently masters of halachah, while R’ Akiva was engaged in Kabbalah (he is the “rabbi of Kabbalah”). This fits with the distinction of ba’alei mishnah/ba’alei talmud.
Question: If R’ Akiva and the others were engaged in telling about the Exodus from Egypt (as the Rambam understands it — literally telling), then they weren’t engaged in Talmud. This doesn’t fit with the statement “if he is a ba’al talmud he should engage in the laws of Pesach.” Proposed answer: Perhaps “telling” and “laws” mean the same thing — when one goes into telling about the Exodus from Egypt, one understands why the law is so, and one goes into fifty gates of understanding of the Exodus from Egypt.
4) Order of the sages — why does Rabbi Akiva come at the end?
The Toldos Yaakov Yosef asks: Rabbi Akiva was the gadol hador, greater than all the others, as stated in Tosafos. Why is he mentioned at the end? The answer (from Tosafos): Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was a person of distinguished lineage (“tenth generation to Ezra”) and wealthy, therefore he is mentioned first. But the question remains why Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer also come before Rabbi Akiva.
5) Two similar stories
There are two similar stories: (a) the story of the sages in Bnei Brak where “their students came and said: Our rabbis, the time for reciting the morning Shema has arrived,” (b) another story where “they came before us and we are going to the study hall.” These are two separate stories.
6) [Digression: Bar Kochba and Bnei Brak]
Rabbi Akiva held that Ben Koziva (Bar Kochba) was the Messiah. It’s suggested that the sages in Bnei Brak were there because it was near the border, related to Bar Kochba’s rebellion. This remains an open question.
—
E) “All night” — until when does the mitzvah of telling go?
Insights and explanations:
1) The connection to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah
The question whether one must be engaged all night or only until midnight depends on the well-known dispute: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah holds the obligation of eating the Pesach offering (and consequently matzah) is only until midnight; Rabbi Akiva holds until morning.
2) Dispute in versions in the Tosefta
The Hagahos Maimoniyos brings a Tosefta “a person is obligated to engage in the laws of Pesach all night.” But there’s a dispute in versions: Rabbeinu Yonah brings the Tosefta only that “a person is obligated to engage even with his sons and household members” — but he doesn’t say “all night” as an obligation. He only brings the story that they did it an entire night, but this isn’t an obligation. Other Rishonim have the version “all night” in the Tosefta itself.
3) The Rosh’s peculiar interpretation
The Rosh had the version “all night” but he interpreted it that “all night” means until one falls asleep — not literally an entire night. This is a very unusual interpretation.
4) The Rambam’s silence
The Rambam doesn’t say at all that one is obligated an entire night. He doesn’t say that “whoever elaborates” means one may not go to sleep. He doesn’t bring any obligation of “all night.”
5) The Maharal’s question
The Maharal asks: How could the sages torment themselves with staying awake? It’s Yom Tov, and one must have joy of Yom Tov, not suffering!
6) “All night” means only the time of the mitzvah
It’s proposed that “all night” doesn’t mean an obligation to be awake, but rather that the time of telling about the Exodus from Egypt extends throughout the entire night — just like every mitzvah whose time is at night (as the Mishnah in Megillah says “anything done at night”). This means, if one didn’t get to it during the Seder, one can still fulfill it until morning.
7) The story is no proof for an obligation
From the fact that something happened once, one cannot make an obligation. There were two stories — but this only shows it’s a virtue, not an obligation. The stories are in praise of the sages — to show how strongly they were immersed in telling about the Exodus from Egypt, that they didn’t even notice it was already day. It’s not written in the Shulchan Aruch that one is obligated to be up an entire night!
8) “Until their students came” — the essence of the story
The main innovation of the story isn’t that one is obligated an entire night, but rather that they were so immersed that they didn’t notice it was already time for Shema. It doesn’t say “they extended in the Exodus from Egypt” — it says that students had to tell them. This is the praise.
9) Time of the morning Shema — when is that?
“The time for reciting the morning Shema has arrived” is at sunrise (like vatikin), which is later than krias hagever. Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam is mentioned regarding “krias hagever.”
10) Practical remark
A Pesach night (which is in Nissan) is actually not so long — only several hours. People think it’s long because they’re tired, but in truth it’s shorter than one thinks.
11) Why did the students say one must recite Shema?
If the sages were engaged all night in the laws of Pesach — which is also a mention of the Exodus from Egypt — why does one still need Shema separately? The answer: Shema is a separate mitzvah d’oraita, and one is not exempt from it through osek b’mitzvah patur min hamitzvah. As the Gemara says that R’ Shimon and his colleagues were exempt from tefillah (because their Torah was their occupation), but not from Shema — Shema remains an obligation even for one who learns.
—
F) “Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to them: Behold I am like seventy years old and I did not merit that the Exodus from Egypt should be said at nights…”
The Rambam’s words: “Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to them: Behold I am like seventy years old and I did not merit that the Exodus from Egypt should be said at nights, until Ben Zoma expounded: ‘In order that you remember the day of your exodus from Egypt all the days of your life’ — ‘the days of your life’ means the days, ‘all the days of your life’ includes the nights. And the Sages say: ‘the days of your life’ means this world, ‘all the days of your life’ includes the days of Mashiach.”
Simple meaning: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that he couldn’t prove that one must mention the Exodus from Egypt at night, until Ben Zoma expounded it from “all the days of your life.” The Sages dispute and say that “all” comes to add the days of Mashiach.
Insights and explanations:
1) This isn’t telling about the Exodus — this is remembering the Exodus
This speaks not of telling about the Exodus from Egypt (the mitzvah of the night of Pesach), but rather of remembering the Exodus from Egypt every single day — a separate mitzvah. The Rambam brings in Hilchos Krias Shema that this is a mitzvah in itself, not in Hilchos Chametz U’Matzah — which shows he holds this doesn’t belong to the telling about the Exodus from Egypt of the night of the Seder.
2) The connection (or lack thereof) to the story of Bnei Brak
What is the connection between Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah’s statement and the story that they were up an entire night? The conclusion is that it’s not truly a continuation. The Haggadah inserted it because it connects — one mentions Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, one mentions something from him about the Exodus from Egypt. But “he said to them” doesn’t appear in our versions — it’s not really a continuation of the story.
3) This is a Mishnah in Berachos, not actually from the Haggadah
This is a Mishnah in Tractate Berachos (chapter 1) which speaks of the matter that one reads Parshas “Vayomer” (the third paragraph of Shema) at night — because there it mentions the Exodus from Egypt. The question is whether one says “Vayomer” at night (because tzitzis doesn’t apply at night — “u’re’isem oso”), and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says one says it because “we mention the Exodus from Egypt at nights”. This is the true context.
4) The Rambam’s position: Parshas tzitzis at night is about the Exodus from Egypt, not about tzitzis
The Rambam learns that what one says Parshas tzitzis at night is not about the mitzvah of tzitzis (because tzitzis doesn’t apply at night — “u’re’isem oso”), but rather about the Exodus from Egypt which is stated there (“I am Hashem your God who took you out from the land of Egypt”). There are multiple reasons why one says this paragraph, and the Exodus from Egypt is one of them.
5) Laws don’t come from verses — an important principle
Here one sees the principle that laws don’t come from the verses and not from how one expounds the verses. Proof: The Mishnah already said earlier (before Ben Zoma’s exposition) that one says the Exodus from Egypt at night. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah already held this law before he found the hint in the verse. The exposition isn’t the source of the law.
Verses are brought for two reasons:
1. As a hint/asmachta — not as the source of the law
2. To “fend off” — because everyone fears a verse that could contradict, one must be precise
Parable: When the Gemara seeks a proof that an esrog is an esrog — this is “from the wisdom of the Scripture” that it hints, but the law doesn’t come from this learning.
6) Meaning of “and I did not merit”
It’s discussed what “lo zachisi” means: one interpretation — he couldn’t bring a proof from a verse (language of merit). Another interpretation — “lo nitzachti” — language of victory in judgment, he couldn’t convince the sages. Another interpretation: an entire night they were arguing, and “lo zachisi” = I didn’t arrive by the end of the night to prove my position.
7) The Rambam’s position: Exodus from Egypt at night is rabbinic, not biblical
According to the Rambam one cannot make new biblical laws through expositions. Always when one learns something from a verse it remains under “divrei sofrim.” Therefore the Exodus from Egypt at night is rabbinic. The verse is only a hint (asmachta), not a source. The Ramban also interprets that when one finds a verse it’s only a hint, it doesn’t become biblical from it.
8) The law is like Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah — a question
Apparently the law should be like the Sages (individual and majority — the law is like the majority), not like Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. Who says the law is like him at all?
Answers:
1. Perhaps the Rambam rules it as rabbinic — “it doesn’t cost anything.”
2. The Rashbatz brings that the Sages also essentially agree to the law; they just didn’t agree to the precise interpretation in the verse, but the main law that one says the Exodus from Egypt at night — to this everyone agrees.
9) Chipazon of Egypt vs. chipazon of Israel — the foundation of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah’s position
The Gemara (Berachos 9.) brings: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah learns from “and I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night” — just as there until midnight, so too here until midnight. Rabbi Akiva learns from “in haste” — until the time of haste, which is in the morning.
– Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah holds chipazon of Egypt — the main moment of the Exodus from Egypt was at night, when the Egyptians pressed upon the Jews to leave. Therefore he holds that the Pesach offering must be eaten before midnight, and therefore he holds that one must mention the Exodus from Egypt at nights.
– Rabbi Akiva holds chipazon of Israel — the Jews actually left in the morning. Consequently he holds that one can eat the Pesach offering until morning, and the essence of the Exodus from Egypt is during the day. Therefore he doesn’t need the verse “in order that you remember… all the days of your life” for nights — he uses it for including the days of Mashiach.
The innovation: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah essentially already held that one must mention the Exodus from Egypt at nights — not because Ben Zoma convinced him, but rather because he holds in general that the essence of the Exodus from Egypt is at night (chipazon of Egypt). Ben Zoma’s exposition (“all the days of your life — to include the nights”) was only a precise interpretation to convince the Sages, but Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah’s own foundation is from elsewhere.
10) Connection between night-remembrance and nullification in the days of Mashiach
The one who holds that one must mention the Exodus from Egypt at nights (Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah) holds that in the days of Mashiach one will no longer need to mention the Exodus from Egypt (because “all the days of your life” is used for nights, not for the days of Mashiach). The one who holds that one doesn’t need to at nights (the Sages) uses “all the days of your life” for the days of Mashiach — and therefore the Exodus from Egypt remains even then.
What does “becoming nullified” in the future mean: Based on the Gemara “they will no longer say ‘as Hashem lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt’” — the Exodus from Egypt won’t be completely nullified, but rather secondary to the new miracles. Just as Yaakov’s name wasn’t nullified but secondary to Yisrael. The new redemption becomes the primary, and the Exodus from Egypt remains secondary.
11) Authenticity of the story in the Haggadah
The story in the Haggadah (as it’s put together with Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah) is “certainly not authentic” — not exactly as it happened. It’s a Mishnah in Berachos, and the Haggadah puts together different opinions “just to make the story nicer.”
Rashi’s position: Rashi says explicitly that the story with Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah (“like seventy years old”) was “during the day” — he was seventy years old, and he compared himself. Rashi says this both in Berachos and here.
12) Ben Zoma
Ben Zoma’s first name is Shimon — Shimon ben Zoma (like Shimon ben Azzai).
13) The Ohr Sameach’s position
The Ohr Sameach holds that according to the Rambam, remembering the Exodus from Egypt every day is not a mitzvah d’oraita, but rabbinic. This fits with the position that the Rambam doesn’t count it as a separate mitzvah. The Ohr Sameach brings a principle that “mitzvos of remembering” is not a mitzvah (d’oraita) according to the Rambam. However, it’s asked: if so, Pesach should also have been nullified — which is not good.
14) [Digression: Tikkun Chatzos — only for simple Jews]
The essence of remembering the Exodus from Egypt (and the destruction of the Temple) is through learning, not through saying a formulated text. The text in the siddur (like Tikkun Chatzos) is only for those who can’t learn. A story is told of a tzaddik who asked a Jew if he says Tikkun Chatzos, and when the Jew said yes, the tzaddik asked: “Have you ever been in Jerusalem? How can you say ‘your city Jerusalem’ if you don’t know what you’re talking about?”
—
G) “Blessed is the Omnipresent who gave the Torah to His people Israel, blessed is He”
The Rambam’s words: “Blessed is the Omnipresent who gave the Torah to His people Israel, blessed is He.”
Simple meaning: One begins the telling portion of the Haggadah with the language “Blessed is the Omnipresent.”
Insights and explanations:
1. Whether “Blessed is the Omnipresent” is a type of blessing over Torah: Because one begins to learn Torah (the Haggadah), one needs a blessing. The answer: it’s not really a blessing over Torah with God’s name and kingship (“Blessed are You Hashem our God, King of the universe”), but rather a language of praise like a blessing over Torah.
2. The Rambam says only once “Blessed is the Omnipresent”, in our Haggados it appears twice.
3. An innovation: When one says “Blessed is the Omnipresent who gave the Torah to His people Israel,” one is perhaps already fulfilling the entire telling about the Exodus from Egypt — because the Rambam says at the end of the Haggadah “and they came to the place of His service,” that is, the purpose of the Exodus from Egypt was to receive the Torah. One couldn’t have received the Torah without leaving Egypt.
4. “HaMakom” as the language of Chazal: In the Bavli one says “Rachmana,” but in earlier Talmudic sources and Midrashei Chachamim one says “HaMakom” or “HaKadosh Baruch Hu.” Chazal themselves explain: “Why do they call Him HaMakom? Because He is the place of the world.”
—
H) “Corresponding to four sons the Torah spoke: one wise, one wicked, one simple, and one who doesn’t know to ask”
The Rambam’s words: “Corresponding to four sons the Torah spoke: one wise, one wicked, one simple, and one who doesn’t know to ask.”
Simple meaning: The Torah speaks about four types of children/people.
Insights and explanations:
1) The entire section is essentially halachah
The entire section of the four sons is essentially halachah (halachic Midrash), not just Haggadah. One says “Torah thoughts” on it because one doesn’t want to learn, but it’s actually halachah.
2) “What does he say” — who is speaking?
It’s discussed whether this means “what does the wise son say” or “what does the Torah say about him.” The conclusion: it means what the wise son himself says, because by “the one who doesn’t know to ask” it says “you open for him” (not “what will he say”) — if it meant what the Torah says about him, the same language should appear by all four.
3) The four sons are not literal sons at the table
A great innovation: the four sons are not as we’re taught — a father with four children sitting at the table. It’s simply four types of mitzvos/situations — a mitzvah how to teach sages, a mitzvah how to teach the wicked, etc. “Son” doesn’t mean literally a son, just as the Rambam says “teach your son” means teaching Torah to Jews in general. There is a matter of precedence (wise before wicked, wicked before simple), but it’s not limited to a father-son situation. Rabbi Akiva with his colleagues also fulfilled telling about the Exodus from Egypt together.
—
I) The wise son — “And you also tell him according to the laws of Pesach”
The Rambam’s words (version): “And you also tell him according to the laws of Pesach” (not “in the laws”).
Simple meaning: One answers the wise son with the laws of Pesach.
Insights and explanations:
1. The wise son is a ba’al talmud, not just a ba’al mikra. He doesn’t need a ruling — he already knows the laws of Pesach. One tells him Mishnah and Talmud — the deep laws.
2. This fits with the law of laws of the holiday on the holiday — one should speak laws that are relevant to the Yom Tov.
—
J) The wicked son — “What is this service to you”
The Rambam’s words: “The wicked one, what does he say, ‘What is this service to you.’ To you and not to him, and since he excluded himself from the community he denied the essence.”
Simple meaning: The wicked son pushes himself away from the community of Israel with his question “to you.”
Insights and explanations:
1) “Blunt his teeth”
This
J) The wicked son — “What is this service to you”
The Rambam’s words: “The wicked one, what does he say, ‘What is this service to you.’ To you and not to him, and since he excluded himself from the community he denied the essence.”
Simple meaning: The wicked son pushes himself away from the community of Israel with his question “to you.”
Insights and explanations:
1) “Blunt his teeth”
This word “hak’heh” literally means to make dull in his language (his teeth).
2) The answer is with the same coin
He says “to you,” we answer “to me and not to him.” This is a retort, not a punishment. “You say to you, I say to me — no problem.”
3) “Had he been there he would not have been redeemed”
This means: “Oh, you’re not part of it? No problem, you can stay in Egypt.” It’s a sharp truth, not a “hack.” A wicked person can handle sharp truth. “Hacks should be for the Chassidic Jews — they need hacks.”
4) We actually want the wicked son to be part of it
If we didn’t want him to be part of it, we wouldn’t have started with him at all. It’s only a retort, not a rejection.
5) “Denies the essence” — what does “essence” mean?
“Ikar” doesn’t mean “principles of faith” (like the 13 principles), but rather “ikar” always means the Master of the Universe Himself — “the essential thing” as it were. A “search” has shown that “ikar” in Chazal always means the Almighty.
6) Why is “What is this service to you” denial of the essence?
The wicked son pushes himself away from the Jews, not from the Almighty — why is he called “denies the essence”? The answer: “Avodah” means “service of God” — when he asks “what is this service,” he denies as it were the “One being served.”
7) “Had he been there he would not have been redeemed” — the simple meaning
It doesn’t mean a literal wicked person who comes to the Seder. The simple meaning: throughout the generations one forgets, and people ask “what is this service to you” — it was three thousand years ago, what is this relevant? The answer: if you had been there with your attitude, you wouldn’t have been redeemed. It’s a warning that one must not forget.
8) The wicked son — “the adult” and the evil inclination
The wicked son apparently speaks of one who just turned eighteen — he is an “adult,” until now he didn’t have an evil inclination, only now did the evil inclination arise. This shows that “wise” doesn’t necessarily mean a child versus an adult.
9) The verse’s answer vs. the Haggadah’s answer
According to the verse the answer is “and you shall say: It is a Pesach offering to Hashem,” but the Haggadah skipped that answer and instead brought a different verse — “because of this Hashem did for me.” In Chassidus they say that one doesn’t answer the wicked son’s question, one lowers oneself to his level. But the simple meaning remains difficult, and one must struggle with the different versions in Sifrei, Yerushalmi, and the like.
10) [Digression: “And they went up armed” — whether eighty percent of Jews died]
The Midrash that “and they went up armed” means only a fifth of the Jews left Egypt is strongly rejected: if so, the Exodus from Egypt isn’t really a miracle — only a small portion was saved. If so, the wicked son is right — he can say “I sympathize with the eighty percent.” It’s said that this isn’t an authentic Chazal, it appears somewhere not in a reliable source. A principle is quoted: one can say about things that are written that they aren’t written, if it’s not Torah.
—
K) The simple son — “What is this”
Simple meaning: One answers the simple son with the story (telling about the Exodus from Egypt).
Innovation: The distinction between the four sons — what each one receives:
– The wise son receives the laws of Pesach
– The wicked son receives praises (rebuke/blunting his teeth)
– The simple son receives the story (telling about the Exodus from Egypt)
– The one who doesn’t know to ask — “you open for him”
—
L) The one who doesn’t know to ask — “You open for him”
The Rambam’s words: By the child who doesn’t know to ask — “you open for him.”
Simple meaning: By the child who doesn’t know to ask, the father must begin himself.
Insights and explanations:
1. “You open for him” means: you begin the question, you begin opening things up. You don’t wait for him to ask, because he doesn’t ask.
2. “You open for him” is apparently the source for the law of techeiles and nuts (one makes changes so the child will ask). “Open” means like “he opened and said” — you begin the conversation yourself.
3. Everything needs to have a beginning, an opening. One can’t just start telling. There must be either a question as an opening, or a verse as an opening. By the child who doesn’t ask, you yourself must create the opening. And it could actually be that making him ask (through techeiles and nuts) is part of “you open for him.”
4. The verse of the one who doesn’t know to ask is the same verse as by the wicked son — “because of this Hashem did for me.”
5. [Remark about education:] When one has a child who is “in trouble” — the Rambam says that you must find a way to speak to him. There are two possibilities: either one says you do what you can, or that by a “crazy” child you’re exempt from educating. But it seems the Rambam goes in the direction of the Midrash Haggadah — that one must find a way.
—
M) “Whoever elaborates in telling” — two extremes
Innovation: There are two types of Seder nights: (1) “Whoever elaborates in telling is praiseworthy” — one extreme, one should elaborate; (2) the other extreme — even when one has a wicked son, simple son, one who doesn’t know to ask, one must occupy oneself with them. The Torah already foresaw that there will be difficult times, and one shouldn’t be lost — “it’s already written in the verse.”
—
N) “One might think from Rosh Chodesh, therefore it says ‘on that day’…”
The Rambam’s words: “And you shall tell your son — one might think from Rosh Chodesh, therefore it says ‘on that day’. If ‘on that day’, one might think while it’s still day, therefore it says ‘because of this’ — at the time when matzah and maror are placed before you.”
Simple meaning: One learns from verses that the obligation of telling about the Exodus from Egypt is not from Rosh Chodesh Nissan, not during the day, but rather at night when matzah and maror lie before you.
Insights and explanations:
1. Why is the hava amina “from Rosh Chodesh”? Because the verse is in Parshas Bo, which speaks of the entire matter of the Exodus from Egypt, and it has something to do with the month — “this month is for you.”
2. What does “because of this” = matzah and maror mean? The learning is because “this” implies something tangible that one can point to — something physical that lies before you. This is the best answer.
3. The simple meaning in “because of this Hashem did for me when I left Egypt”: “Because of this” — I do (the mitzvos), because Hashem did for me (at the Exodus from Egypt). This means: I do the mitzvos because the Holy One, blessed be He, took me out of Egypt. This is the simple translation.
—
O) The overall order of the Haggadah — a structural observation
Innovation: From “We were slaves” until “Initially our forefathers were idol worshippers” is essentially a continuation — a sugya about the obligation of telling about the Exodus from Egypt. This includes: how long it is, for whom it is, what is the source, the four sons, “one might think from Rosh Chodesh,” and so on. These are different statements about the sugya.
The order of the Haggadah is not in a logical order — it has drawn in different sugyos in the middle. One asks Mah Nishtanah, one answers “We were slaves” or “Initially” — and the entire piece in the middle (four sons, one might think from Rosh Chodesh, etc.) one has drawn into the sugya. It was made into an organized Haggadah with a chapter “Mitzvos of the Haggadah” — that the entire first part of the Haggadah is a sugya about the obligation.
—
P) “Initially our forefathers were idol worshippers and now the Omnipresent has brought us close to His service”
The Rambam’s words: “Initially our forefathers were idol worshippers and now the Omnipresent has brought us close to His service” — with the verse from Yehoshua 24.
Simple meaning: One tells that our forefathers were idol worshippers and the Almighty brought us close.
Insights and explanations:
1) Two interpretations of “initially”
“Initially our forefathers were idol worshippers” can serve as another answer to the question why we eat matzah and why we tell — it’s not only “Arami oved avi,” but also the foundation that our forefathers were idol worshippers and the Almighty brought us close.
2) The language “and now” — a continuation from then until today
“And now” is written thousands of years after the event — shouldn’t it say “and afterwards”? The innovation: “and now” means that from then until today is one long continuation — “it’s all one” — that Jews are the seed of the righteous. A Jew must always be in the “and now,” in the state of “the Omnipresent has brought us close to His service.”
3) The verse from Yehoshua — “Beyond the river your forefathers dwelt of old”
“So says Hashem, God of Israel: Beyond the river your forefathers dwelt of old, Terach the father of Avraham and the father of Nachor, and they served other gods.” One asks: “of old” means “eternally” — but the world isn’t eternal? One answers: “of old” means here “from once” / “originally” — not eternally in the sense of “forever and ever.”
4) “And they served other gods” — Terach with Nachor, but not Avraham?
According to the simple meaning, Terach also had a “wise son” (Avraham) and a “wicked son” (Nachor). But Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam is mentioned regarding “Avraham himself was among the worshippers” — Avraham himself was also an idol worshipper at the beginning, until he recognized the truth. Avraham himself perceived the Almighty, not that the Almighty “took” him.
5) “Avraham crossed the river”
The holy tzaddikim interpret that Avraham is “crossed the river” — he crossed the river (metaphorically — he crossed from idol worship to faith), while normal people say simply “he was my father.”
6) The Almighty as “Makom” — He runs places
The Almighty comes out in the verses as the one who runs places — He placed them first beyond the river, then “and they both went throughout the land of Canaan.” He took them and brought them to the Land of Israel. The Almighty is called here “Makom Baruch” because He runs the places.
7) The pattern of righteous/wicked in every generation
By Avraham — Avraham and Nachor (Nachor is the wicked one); by Yitzchak — Yaakov and Esav (Esav is the wicked one/inciter). Every generation the wicked one falls away, and we focus on the righteous — “and Yaakov and his sons went down to Egypt.”
—
Q) “Blessed is He who keeps His promise to Israel”
The Rambam’s words: “Blessed is He who keeps His promise to Israel, blessed is He, for the Holy One, blessed be He, calculated the end…”
Simple meaning: One praises the Almighty who keeps His promise to Israel.
Insights and explanations:
1) Textual variations
In certain versions it says “amo” after “to Israel” and in others not. Also: in our Haggadah it says “calculated the end” (past tense), while in other versions it says “calculates the end” (present tense) — with a smile: “He’s calculating now the new end.”
—
R) “And it is this that has stood by our forefathers and us”
The Rambam’s words: “And it is this that has stood by our forefathers and us, that not only one has stood against us to destroy us, but rather in every generation they stand against us to destroy us, and the Holy One, blessed be He, saves us from their hand.”
Simple meaning: The promise of the Almighty stands by us in every generation.
Insights and explanations:
1) “And it is” with a hei (feminine) vs. “and he is” with a vav (masculine)
“V’hi” refers to the promise (feminine).
2) Great question: where does it say in the promise “in every generation”?
In the promise to Avraham nothing is written about “in every generation they stand against us to destroy us”! The promise only speaks of “and they will enslave them and afflict them” for a specific time (400 years). From where do we take that the promise applies to all generations?
Possible answers:
a. “For the Holy One, blessed be He, calculates the end” — the Almighty calculates an end for every trouble, not just for Egypt. This isn’t directly from the promise to Avraham, but it’s the Almighty’s way.
b. “A land not theirs” — it doesn’t say which land! Perhaps the promise means that every time Jews are in a “land not theirs” (a land that isn’t theirs), there’s a promise that the Holy One, blessed be He, will save. This is a good interpretation — it’s not limited to Egypt.
c. The Midrash — there’s a Midrash that says it applies to today as well. The Almighty is “keeps His promise” in long-term, not one-time.
3) The “vicious cycle” of persecutions
Everything began with Pharaoh — Pharaoh made Jews into “victims,” and this began a cycle where every king sees that one can grab Jews. The Almighty takes responsibility for this — He sent Jews to Egypt, and therefore He is obligated to save in every generation. It’s a two-sided obligation: just as Jews must keep Torah, the Almighty must also keep His promise.
4) “Keeps His promise” — long-term
“Keeps His promise” means that He keeps the promise in long-term, not that He fulfilled it once at the Exodus from Egypt. He is still keeping it.
5) Exodus from Egypt at night — a deeper meaning
Why is it so important that the Exodus from Egypt is obligated at night? Because “night” represents the long exile, and we want to obligate that the Almighty must also remember the Exodus from Egypt in the long night — “that is entirely night” — the exile which is like one long night. This means: the obligation of remembering the Exodus from Egypt at night is not only our obligation, but rather it’s a reminder that the Almighty should also remember His promise in the “night” of exile.
📝 Full Transcript
The Mitzvah of Recounting the Exodus from Egypt — For Whom and Why Every Year?
A) The Fundamental Question: Why Must One Recount Every Year If One Already Knows?
This is what we’re holding in the middle of the Haggadah work.
What I said is, that seemingly the question that one wants to know, whether the question is valid, whether the “even,” it’s already a great question. Certainly the mitzvah is to recount for those who don’t know, for the next generations. The simple meaning in the verse, “ki yomru lachem machar” — machar doesn’t mean, as the Midrash also says, machar doesn’t mean tomorrow, it means for generations. “Ki lo hayita sham”, he doesn’t know.
Now you want to know if we fulfill this? Yes, certainly we fulfill this. How does one say it for the next generation? One says it once a year, once a day, I don’t know. Eh, that one already heard last year? Okay, his brother didn’t hear. One doesn’t need to… each time one strengthens and adds more for the next generation.
The Simple Explanation: We Transmit From Generation to Generation
Exactly, that’s what I’m saying. That the mitzvah is to say it for the next generation. Eh, the one I’m speaking with already knows? If yes, it would be enough that one does it once, like bar mitzvah. That’s what you’re saying, it doesn’t work that way. One must engrave it a hundred times, ask… No, I don’t want to ask. One must put it in several times until it becomes a piece… One doesn’t need to arrive at that.
The simple explanation is most simply that one says it for the generations so they should know what one does on Pesach. You specifically don’t know? Okay, we review it so you should know well so you should be able to say it to your children. One doesn’t need to arrive at all the things you’re asking. I know what you’re asking. Okay, but it goes this way.
Against Over-Complicating: The Power of Forgetting, Kli Yakar, and Other Interpretations
The power of forgetting that things become forgotten, and one breaks with this the measure, yes, to go through the measure. I don’t even need to arrive at the fourth part. Because one can’t say that the Kli Yakar on Egypt means to say that he should go down to the Land of Israel. I don’t know if the Kli Yakar on Egypt means to say that he should go down to the Land of Israel. Okay, I don’t know. I think that this is a different version. I think that this is not the same version. It’s two different versions, both say. Two different versions.
And therefore the Haggadah is simple, the next generations don’t know, one must say it. When does one say it? Once a year. I don’t know, when will one do it, once a jubilee? Once in a lifetime? It’s not a thing. One does it this way.
Discussion: Why Not Make a Middle Way?
Speaker 1: By this time you want… by this time you lose the simple thing I’m saying. Then you make it more complicated. It’s forgetting, it’s bringing into the heart all kinds of Torah teachings. I specifically want to say without that. Yes yes, it’s a different way of saying the same thing. I don’t want to say that. I want to say something most simply. One transmits from generation to generation for the children.
You ask me a question, the boy already heard yesterday. Okay, what should I tell him like you say for every mitzvah? There’s no answer to such a thing, there’s nothing that’s transmitted this way. Perhaps there’s somewhere a society that works this way, but by us it doesn’t work this way. One says it over every year, that’s how it’s transmitted. How is it transmitted? Every Pesach one said it. Do you have another way how it was transmitted? I can hear, perhaps you have another way, but this is the way how we do it.
B) “Even If We Are All Wise” — A “Lo Plug” Principle
Therefore, therefore, even when there’s exactly one time that the child knows yes, one still does it in this manner, because one plays as if he doesn’t know. Because the mitzvah is for the one who doesn’t know, the mitzvah is not for the one who knows yes.
A Great Principle in Torah: Every Mitzvah Has Its Normal Picture
Just as every mitzvah in the world has the main need, and afterwards there are such… One must understand a bit why it’s not different. It’s not different. It’s not… let’s say, whoever decided — this he only says from later authorities — whoever decided that Pesach is the time when one recounts about this, Sukkot doesn’t have such a mitzvah, there’s no such mitzvah anywhere. It stands, stands, may stand many things. I’m not talking about what it says. What it says may say. I’m telling you whoever decided that one recounts Pesach and not Sukkot, did he decide that now one gives it over.
You ask a question, what about all the mitzvot that one says after mitzvot in all these things? No problem, it perhaps helps too, but that’s not my problem now. The problem is only, if so, why does one ask the question? Precisely about this. Because I’m telling you, every mitzvah in the world has how it is the manner how one must do it, and there’s such a side case that’s not exactly, but it’s already included, one does it already in this manner.
It’s made for the one who doesn’t know. Who doesn’t know? The children. And what if one hadn’t done it, think about it, and what if one would never have done the play, it would never have been. So, you ask a question, the boy already heard last year. There’s no such middle way.
Examples From Other Mitzvot: Lulav, Rain, and Others
So, yes, because you can’t think of a middle way. What should I do? This is every mitzvah. It’s not the first thing that’s this way. One says it for the one who doesn’t know, and the one who knows yes, snores this way. Every single mitzvah and every single thing in the world has like the “lo plug” part of it. One does it already as it belongs. It’s not a great problem.
We always have our explanations, this one is more… This is not a true reason, we’re not talking now, each one is from those who were divided. I’m not talking now about those who were divided, and there is a mitzvah truly. He can say that there’s no such mitzvah, he can say many things. I’m telling you those who were divided this way. I’m only talking to you in this detail. The Rambam, or one doesn’t know who, the Mishnah.
This I’m telling you, this is a great principle in Torah. On every mitzvah one makes oneself so crazy. A card is suddenly… it’s already twelve and a half, and that one wonders, this is already such an edge case, this is exactly. I must do it somewhere this way, here cut off. I have what to do to meet what doesn’t fit. But the joke goes this way, and lulav was made, what do I have to do with this? Do me something, I must do it anyway, we pretend a bit.
There’s no… I know, what else is a thing that one says? I know, one asks for rain. What if someone doesn’t exactly need rain? It’s already a text. It’s this way the order. We make, why is the text this way? Because the normal case, the main thing, what you want to call the paradigmatic case, the main process, is when it’s a normal case, when one truly doesn’t know. You have exactly one who knows yes, is an exception, and you don’t go asking…
I don’t know about this, could be, but whatever it is, the normal picture is not this way. You’re not normal, what should I do? I should make for you a special text and exempt you? Can’t be this way. You continue with the normal text.
The Sharpness of “Even If We Are All Wise”
The whole “even if we are all wise,” I take down the, I ruin the whole point, the whole sharpness of the “even if we are all wise.” “Afilu kulanu chachamim” is a way of saying, even if you’re a… you exactly don’t need the mitzvah, no problem, you should do it for yourself anyway. Like all mitzvot.
Every time when a person says “the reason for the mitzvah is not relevant for me, because I’m already normal,” it does concern us. Not about this should one twist and say a mitzvah is not about the reason. Certainly it’s about the reason. It’s only the reason is on the normal manner. Why did you exactly encounter something for one wise person? Ah, already made.
How many such wise people are there, please? There aren’t so many wise people. We are here “kulanu chachamim,” we think that there aren’t so many wise people. No, one can interpret “kulanu chachamim,” the whole world wants to be wise, I know. If the whole world would have made wisdom there truly wouldn’t be any law, this I want to show. I don’t want to take away the simple explanation, I also want to understand that what there is sometimes an exception, or perhaps many exceptions, doesn’t disturb. One continues with the normal process. That’s all.
C) “And Whoever Increases in Recounting the Exodus from Egypt” — To Recount or Laws?
Already, this is the only thing I said. There are so many versions, the question arises, what does one say? One made such a text, you know, no confusion of the world. Okay, peace now we’re holding… where are we holding anyways? Ahh… by Abudraham by it’s not… by the matter of specifically… stories.
The Abudraham’s Explanation About the Rambam’s Version
Ah, so the Abudraham goes this way: when the text would be when the Rambam himself would have written he would have written “ma’aseh b’chachamim she’hayu yoshvin,” but he wanted in something to have to hold to the seal, the Rambam didn’t write the whole thing. Could be he made a small change, I don’t even know. It can simply be that he went and asked his mother for the siddur, but from where do you think…
Speaker 2: Yes, yes. By me it also says this way… it’s not the language “hamarbeh l’saper,” “hamarbeh l’saper”… how does it say in our Haggadah? “V’chol hamarbeh l’saper b’yetziat Mitzrayim” or “V’chol hamarbeh l’saper b’yetziat Mitzrayim”?
Speaker 1: Yes, mine means “v’chol hamarbeh” the same thing… but mine means this the same thing. But one can here make a meaning opposite from those who say one should learn laws and one should speak about laws, because one can this have been this way: “clearly them, clear rabbis, knows the sitting ones,” maybe it can make with years full many elephants.
Tosefta Pesachim — “A Person Is Obligated to Engage in the Laws of Pesach”
The Gaon from the right is here, brings the Tosefta, yes, see the Tosefta in tractate Pesachim. Yes, well. Speaks about law, yes, about learning law. Look what he says: “Chayav adam la’asok b’hilchot haPesach”, many engage for themselves, about the Tosefta Pesach all night. “She’hayu b’bayit,” behold, you skip the names mentioned. Well, Bnei Brak is Bnei Brak. Perhaps it was in the Bnei Brak of then. It was a great Bnei Brak.
Speaker 2: No, it wasn’t. It was a great Bnei Brak, and one must mention that he gave his dinner for him. They gave out the dinner for acts of kindness.
Discussion: Two Similar Stories
Speaker 1: But seemingly, if so, one can say that the story is to take out of mind… it’s a different story. It’s a different story. Righteous ones say the words.
Speaker 2: No, no. The Rebbe says even in Skver. I didn’t say now to learn compassion about the elders were. The four sons were, the Rebbe says that one has compassion on us. Can one not say this on the five Tannaim? But for no, mitzvah l’saper b’yetziat Mitzrayim.
Speaker 1: I don’t know. I don’t know.
Speaker 2: No, no, it’s not. But one goes here with this that one should explain the Exodus from Egypt. Not that one should bring out the deficiencies of today’s generations.
Speaker 1: I don’t know. I don’t know. Not necessarily. Not necessarily. I don’t know. Perhaps there’s a dispute. I think they agreed even all the more so wise people.
Speaker 2: No, no, one must arrive at the righteous. You want to say Torah-wise? Torah-wise I’ve already heard. You want to say that it’s necessary, it’s not very far from necessary. Seemingly it means that you’re saying, “we went to cheder, we already know the story, one must recount it anyway.” It’s no contradiction if someone will say that it’s a mitzvah. By me it says yes “l’saper b’yetziat Mitzrayim”. I don’t understand. It says mitzvah l’saper b’yetziat Mitzrayim, I increase in the Exodus from Egypt. Ah, I don’t know what the language… ah, it’s perhaps this way. I don’t know. The laws of Pesach, I don’t know. It could be that the…
The Barditchever’s Torah
The Barditchever certainly said “kol hamarbeh b’yetziat Mitzrayim” means that one goes out from Egypt every year on Pesach. Literally one increases in the going out from Egypt.
Speaker 2: In what should one increase? One already went out.
Speaker 1: No, one cooks oneself in the exodus, one goes out again and again.
“Until the Rooster Crowed” — The Students Came
In short, ad krot hagever. And it says the story “ba’u lifneinu va’anachnu holchim l’beit hamidrash”. Yes? It doesn’t say that the students came. It’s a different story. It’s another story, a similar story.
Speaker 2: The students came in, they said “raboteinu, higia zman kriat Shema shel shacharit”.
Speaker 1: A similar story. Yes. But it could be that the servant says, I already know if it’s truly a dispute, here should be the exile of the dispute perhaps. But the one who does go out laws of Pesach, he holds that this is the recounting.
The Laws of Pesach in the Middle of the Story in the Chumash
By the way, even in the Torah, in the Chumash, in the Chumash of Parshat Bo all the laws of Pesach are in the middle of the story. It appears that it’s part of the story.
The Recounting of the Exodus from Egypt: Between Story and Law
The Laws of Pesach as Part of the Recounting
The laws of Pesach, I don’t know, it could be that the Belzer Rav certainly said “kol hamarbeh b’sipur yetziat Mitzrayim” means that one goes out from Egypt every year on Pesach. One must literally be absorbed in the going out from Egypt. What does one need after everything, one must already go out.
In short, he has a great man, I give him, it says the story, I am before him and they gave him law to the house of study, yes? There it doesn’t say that the students came, it’s a different story. It’s another story. A similar story. But it could be that the one who says, I know that it’s truly a dispute, but the one who grasps laws of Pesach, he holds that this is the recounting.
By the way, even in the Torah, in the Chumash, in Parshat Bo, all the laws of Pesach are in the middle of the story. It appears that it’s part of the story. The laws of Pesach is truly a part of the story, because the first time the laws were before the miracle, because Pesach Egypt already had the laws. Yes, it can also be that each one does according to his matter. One should be in Haggadah, one in law, I don’t see that it’s not necessary that you have here a problem with this.
Did he anyway mention the matter of recounting laws, of learning laws? No, only “asher yigalenu”. The Rambam didn’t bring it. The Rambam the whole time spoke about literally, about the recounting. The Rambam one didn’t see the recounting. What will he do with the piece of Haggadah that has laws of Pesach? So I don’t know. Perhaps the Rambam held that it’s a dispute and he didn’t bring the opinion, the point. I don’t know.
I want to understand something that the learning laws for those who…
The Midrash: Masters of Scripture, Masters of Mishnah, Masters of Talmud
Zeira from below, yes? Do you have here for example what one says Shabbat HaGadol sermon, yes? It says in the holy books, in Shulchan Aruch Magen Avraham whatever, it says that one should say the laws and practices necessary for action, and not like they are accustomed now to say a pilpul, yes?
The Rebbes have already said that he means that one must feel that one is conducting oneself now, but… yes. So what is the explanation? The explanation is each one inclines according to his level, if it’s a house of study of people who… he says a pilpul. If it’s a house of study of people who know… I don’t see such a strong contradiction in the reality, how did it become at all the thing that one says a pilpul? Simply what it was Torah scholars, and they were bearded. He said nothing, and still on the Seder night it’s already too late to say laws of Pesach, simply practical law.
Exactly, it doesn’t mean simply speaking, not to calculate by the Pesach offering, it should one say… No, it means simply the practical law. Like the Mishnah, whatever the Mishnah engages in, verses and the… as I understand, I think, I need to look at more places… ah, I have here a Midrash, yes righteous one, look in this Midrash. I have here a Midrash, do you know my Midrash? This is my proof. My Midrash from one of the Tannaim, no no righteous one, no, it says this way, yes?
The Gemara in Sanhedrin: One Who Reads a Verse at a Drinking Party
What does one do when… how is this the… yes, they said to him, it’s a Gemara in Sanhedrin. Yes, one should not simply use the Torah for a song, for drinking parties. What does one do when one makes a feast? Yes? They said to him, did the Almighty say, the Torah complains that the Jews use it, what should He do for them? They must do something! Did He say this way, what did He say? Take one verse from Song of Songs and sing it, should he truly learn. No, what does he say? What does he say? Well, if, if…
If he is a master of Scripture, let him engage in Torah, Prophets and Writings; if he is a master of Mishnah, let him engage in Mishnah, laws and aggadot; if he is a master of Talmud, let him engage in the laws of Pesach on Pesach, Shavuot on Shavuot, the Festival on the Festival.
So it turns out that it depends, if he is a ba’al mikra (master of Scripture), he is osek (engaged) in mikra. But what does osek in mikra mean?
No, not Shir HaShirim (Song of Songs). They’re talking about someone who makes a mishteh (feast), he sings a pasuk (verse) that is not requested in the Torah. He brings a pasuk, I don’t believe it.
“Hakorei pasuk b’beit hamishta’ot b’lo zmano” (One who recites a verse at a feast not in its proper time). What does that mean? When you sing now something from Pesach, you sing something relevant, you sing b’lo zmano (not in its time). What does that mean? That’s what brought them here to Pesach. No, because it says b’lo zmano. “Hakorei pasuk b’beit hamishta’ot b’lo zmano”. When you sing, you honor the people with a pasuk, you sing a pasuk that is relevant to the chag (holiday). Very good. Yes, because the continuation is “hakorei pasuk b’zmano” (one who recites a verse in its proper time). What does that mean? We make kiddush, we say a pasuk b’zmano. That’s the fulfillment. Ah, there is a kiddush of Pesach. What is a kiddush of Pesach? A mishteh? What is the definition of Pesach? Isn’t it a mishteh? On this, it’s a mishteh, yes, one takes a cup, one says on this verses with “Arami oved avi” (My father was a wandering Aramean), whatever it is. That’s a pasuk b’zmano. But what does one who doesn’t know, what does he sing? He sings chukim (statutes) from the Torah. That’s the next piece, “kol hakorei pasuk b’zmano”. That’s the Gemara in the sugya. Perhaps the other pieces that I brought also, but I think that this is the…
Understanding the Three Levels
So apparently, in ba’alei Talmud in my opinion, the ba’alei Talmud here are not so good in mikra. Why? Because he says “halomed Torah mipi echad” (one who learns Torah from one person). Then he can do like the previous one. Apparently, then he can make the… The ba’al Talmud didn’t know, he didn’t know all the midrashim on this seder. I never meant, I always meant that it’s levels. I always meant that it’s levels, that if you want to be a ba’al Talmud. On the contrary, I wanted to find the proof.
Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah and Rabbi Tarfon were apparently halachic, not so much… Rabbi Akiva was younger. Rabbi Akiva, king, what is a good… Hello?
Um, so what do you see here? That if you want to learn, what should he learn? Not from ba’alei Talmud? No, I wanted to make my interpretation and find a proof that Rabban Gamliel was a Talmudist, and then say that Rabbi Akiva is not Talmud. Not ba’alei, what does it say here? What is the language? Not ba’alei Mishnah. Not ba’alei, again, mikra’ot, lo yafsik (should not cease). Mishnah, it says, “ya’asok b’Mishnah halachot v’aggadot” (should engage in Mishnah, halachot and aggadot). The ba’alei Talmud is halachot Pesach b’Pesach (laws of Pesach on Pesach). That means, he’s just passing through the translation. I brought the pasuk, I already know the translation. Ba’alei mikra is one who is osek in mikra, I understand. Ba’alei Mishnah includes already halachot and aggadot. Apparently Mishnah means people who can’t be deeply in halachot, they can only read, they can say a Mishnah, a halachah, an aggadah too. It says in the Midrash, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi zeh she’osek (this is one who engages). Then ba’al Talmud means one who innovates. And then…
Okay, but just say what it says. It’s going to end in a few minutes. How long is the whole shiur already most? I mean, two hours?
The Story of Bnei Brak and the Question of Ba’alei Talmud
So the thing is, Rabban Gamliel was the rabbi of the others, Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yehoshua? They were students of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. No, here it says a different story of Rabban Gamliel… What is it called? What is the story of the Hagahot Maimoniyot? It doesn’t say who else, right? Rabban Gamliel and the Chachamim.
And one must think, Rabbi Akiva was osek in kabbalah, he was the rabbi of kabbalah. But Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Tarfon, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, they are apparently ba’alei halachah. So, in short, it doesn’t fit with the statement of “ein ba’alei mikra yotz’in” (ba’alei mikra don’t go out). It could be that now we’re talking not necessarily about the three, not necessarily about the three. What doesn’t it fit? Because if Abraham was osek in the story of the Exodus from Egypt, he wasn’t osek in any Talmud.
Discussion: What Does “Leharbor B’sippur” Mean?
By the way, again, this whole deduction is only according to you, that you decided that that’s the difference. Perhaps it means the same thing entirely. It could be that Abraham Avinu did know the story of the Exodus from Egypt. It’s a doubt hakol (everything), apparently hakol modim (everyone agrees). One can’t say that Abraham Avinu didn’t know the laws of Pesach. If Abraham Avinu comes into the story of the Exodus from Egypt, the question is what he did. He did, apparently one must understand why the law is such and such, and he went into the fifty gates of the Exodus from Egypt. And the Rambam says, but until the Rambam said it, people didn’t know it.
But leharbor (to increase) can mean learning halachot. The Rambam is the one who decided that telling means literally telling. That’s the Rambam’s chiddush (innovation). I don’t know if the Rambam’s chiddush is the simple meaning, but it’s not so… But people say as I say, that everyone should know the parsha, one should know the matters of the day, one doesn’t necessarily have to tell the story. If one must tell the story, then I already have the whole question.
I have a question mena beih (from where), because amar lahem Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah (Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to them) is not part of the story, that’s a pilpul (sharp analysis), that was more of a student thing.
Amar lahem Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, that’s the discussion they had. He brings down one piece of what they discussed kol halailah (all night).
No, certainly, that I tell you that it’s not the whole…
But Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah is a response to the arrival of ben kriat Shema shel shacharit (the time for the morning Shema)?
No, no, no. What you’re saying that lesaper (to tell) doesn’t mean saying halachot, that’s not necessary, it could be that it means lesaper to discuss. He also doesn’t say it in a way that it’s not a dispute. I think that what he mainly wants to bring is… nothing, huh? What does he want to bring from this? Nothing. He brings a tosefet (addition), an important addition. Perhaps he wants to bring from this that one must be up all night? It’s not discussed in either of them. I don’t know. Okay.
It was a story, yes. Amar lahem Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah… No, no, it was the story with Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Tarfon. Do you know what is the source of being able to mix? No? Okay. Anyway.
Apparently the matter of mixing… and being abundant is only on Leil HaSeder (the Seder night). He says that the Mishnah distinguishes between Eiselgoren and Shener, because Shener is not kosher. And Kener, because Shener is mentioned in Sefer HaMikneh.
Ma’aseh B’Rabbi Eliezer V’Rabbi Yehoshua She’hayu Mesubin B’Bnei Brak (The Story of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua Who Were Reclining in Bnei Brak)
The Story in Bnei Brak – Simple Meaning and Investigations
Speaker 1:
You don’t have like, it’s not from the “kol hagerem she’eilah im shi’ur” (all who cause a question with a measure). The Mishnah doesn’t list “kol hagerem she’eilah im shi’ur”. It’s not a question. It’s not a question.
Okay, ma’aseh b’Rabbi Eliezer v’Rabbi Yehoshua v’Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah v’Rabbi Akiva v’Rabbi Tarfon (a story with Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah and Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon). The group of talmidei chachamim (Torah scholars), Rabbi Eliezer HaGadol, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Tarfon, who were sitting in Bnei Brak.
Who Was the Host in Bnei Brak?
Which of the Chachamim lived in Bnei Brak? Who was the host? As if, one must look a bit in the commentators who bring the information. Simply one can become aware of who was at whose place. But here it says they were in beit din (court), and here it doesn’t say any name at whose place they were.
They were in Bnei Brak at someone’s place. Who was the ba’al habayit (host)? Why doesn’t it say it was Tarfon’s house?
Speaker 2:
Perhaps they say.
Speaker 1:
I don’t bring commentators with points that say all the things one needs to know. I don’t know, take this or that or that, and see if he brings.
Speaker 2:
That’s not good.
Speaker 1:
No, but this, he doesn’t bring anything. It’s interesting. The “Encyclopedia Hilchatit Refu’it” (Medical Halachic Encyclopedia), I don’t know who made it, but it’s displayed nicely. It’s good now only that I thought it was better. Yes. But the person you brought me, he doesn’t bring about the story.
What Did They Learn – Halachot, Story, or Secrets?
Speaker 2:
Ah, see, I knew it comes from here.
Speaker 1:
He says, the Mechilta says, “lo shehayu chavurah shel chachamim davka oskim b’hilchot Pesach, ela she’ein lomdim ela edut” (not that a group of sages were specifically engaged in the laws of Pesach, but that they only learn testimony). It emerges, that’s my proof. The whole piece “afillu kullanu” (even all of us) is built on… The question of Parashat Bereishit Chanah, because there the matter is engaged. I just want I make from this an obligation, because one must ad shetifneh shnato (until his sleep departs). What is the simple meaning of the obligation? I don’t know.
Rabbi Eliezer was still in the Beit HaMikdash, Rabbi Yehoshua was… okay.
Speaker 2:
Not because one must do it, right?
Speaker 1:
What yes?
Speaker 2:
Not because one must do it, right? We’re talking about the… Beit HaMikdash forty-five Pesachim.
Speaker 1:
He means here… And also he explains why it’s ad chatzot (until midnight). Again, ad chatzot is according to… No! No! Because he holds that the entire obligation of Pesach is only until midnight.
That’s all. The one who holds that the entire obligation is only until midnight… We who hold, this depends on the dispute of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah whether the obligation is until midnight or until early morning whether we can eat matzah from Pesach. Pesach is perhaps certainly here that the decree is on matzah. That’s the question, that’s the chiddush, okay. That’s the point.
It also says, it’s very clear that the afillu chachamim (even sages), it’s very interesting, because here it says specifically mitzvah aleinu lesaper (it is a commandment upon us to tell). Perhaps lesaper simply means to speak. And the version of the Chachamim, always says in kiyum hilchot haPesach (fulfillment of the laws of Pesach), not sages who know the story, everyone knows the story. So I don’t know, and the mesaprim b’yetziat Mitzrayim kol oto halailah (telling about the Exodus from Egypt all that night), I don’t know if it means they told the stories. It could be as you say if according to the Rambam’s version that the amar lahem Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, it implies in any case that they learned halachot. Everyone learns what they can. Okay, yes.
Already, he doesn’t say who the history of the Rabbi Elazar with Rabbi Yehoshua.
Speaker 2:
He should look, perhaps here they speak about this. You want to know?
Speaker 1:
I don’t know what he should say Torah lecha (Torah to you), you say Torah lecha, he should say Torah lecha.
Speaker 2:
No, but he does try to bring the main… no?
Speaker 1:
He doesn’t bring the main thing that the Rishonim say.
The Rishonim don’t say Torah, they say the simple meaning. Most say the simple meaning. Okay, here there are various… Let’s see, look here on the internet to see.
“Afillu Kullanu Chachamim” (Even If All of Us Are Wise) – The Initial Assumption That Sages Would Be Exempt
Discussion: What Is the Initial Assumption According to the Rambam?
Speaker 2:
What is the initial assumption? If we know that the story of the Exodus from Egypt is literally a mitzvah, what should be the initial assumption that sages would be exempt?
Speaker 1:
A very good one. If one doesn’t go like the Rambam, one understands the Haggadah, that he already knows certainly the mitzvah of telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt, but this is the way how one says it.
If the story of the Exodus from Egypt is not a Torah obligation, one understands why there should be an initial assumption that sages who know the Torah don’t have the mitzvah. They already know. Because the whole matter that the Torah says one should remember the Exodus from Egypt, not that there should be something a mitzvah in telling. Sages who already know, they are someone who have already practiced for many years, perhaps not. On this the ba’al haHaggadah must say. But according to the Rambam’s approach that it’s a proper Torah obligation, what is the initial assumption that sages would be exempt from the mitzvah? Correct. Correct.
They struggle here about how to establish the version. In any case, no one brings properly.
The Answer of Rabbi Avraham Chadidah – “Lema’an Tizkor” (In Order That You Remember)
Again Rabbi Avraham Chadidah, he has an interpretation, not a bad interpretation. He says, that about this one says further Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, that it’s part of the matter of telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt, “lema’an tizkor” (in order that you remember). Because remembering the Exodus from Egypt is certainly that one must remember even if one already remembered yesterday, one must remember again. If telling means… All these distinctions don’t properly meet us. The approach is not polished because because because one said that telling is only once, one must say it to the children. Okay, then one can say that the Torah is already. But if one sees the word “zechirah” (remembrance), zechirah means further. According to how the Rambam taught us, yes.
In short, they were osek in the mitzvah of telling kol oto halailah (all that night). That’s what you’re saying, which is interesting, because it’s a whole night, it should be until midnight, okay. But the Shulchan Aruch says this, and this is certainly a dispute and a stringency. Therefore it means that the main mitzvah is telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt.
Okay.
“Ad Sheba’u Talmideihem” (Until Their Students Came) – The Time for the Morning Shema
Ad sheba’u talmideihem and… The Ponevezher Rav, Rabbi Yechezkel Levenstein, said all the sayings that he brought, I can’t write them quickly. Yechezkel Levenstein was a ba’al ma’aseh merkavah (master of the mystical chariot).
Discussion: Did They Learn Ma’aseh Merkavah?
Speaker 2:
They were osek in ma’aseh merkavah.
Speaker 1:
Yechezkel Levenstein says that one can see that they were osek in ma’aseh merkavah, but they were osek in the simple meaning of the story.
Speaker 2:
Yes, but that’s just deductions, father. They were indeed osek in ma’aseh merkavah.
Speaker 1:
Nothing fits you. I don’t understand what you’re talking about. It’s not built on anything. The simple meaning of the text of the ba’alei haHaggadah is that one tells the story of the Exodus from Egypt, not any halachot.
Speaker 2:
Yochlenu v’yishteh, yochlenu v’yishteh (he will eat and drink).
Speaker 1:
I’m not convinced. As the Midrash says, one can learn halachot, one can learn aggadah, one can learn secrets. I don’t see what the great innovation is.
“Kol Hamarbeh Lesaper” (Whoever Increases in Telling) – What Does “Marbeh” Mean?
I actually think that the simple translation, as I think I deduced from the Rambam, that the simple translation of “kol hamarbeh” (whoever increases) is that there are many versions in the Haggadah. One has a longer Haggadah, one has a shorter Haggadah. One says that one fulfills in a few seconds. Do you want to say a longer version? There is a longer version.
He brings here from the Arugat HaBosem, I don’t know who that is, that “kol hamarbeh lesaper harei zeh meshubach” (whoever increases in telling is praiseworthy) means to say, it’s not enough that one says what one already knows but one must innovate something. Like a ba’al darshan (preacher) innovates something. On the contrary, “harei zeh meshubach” is only what you know for certain what happened. You can’t say any new things.
Okay, already, let’s go further.
The Time for the Morning Shema – When Is It?
In short, the innovations came until early morning. The time for the morning Shema, what is when? When is the time for the morning Shema? “Kriat hagever” (the call of the rooster) says in Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam, it seems. But there it doesn’t say “ba’u talmidav” (his students came), and here something the students came and said. It doesn’t say the students said.
Okay. The time for the morning Shema is at netz hachamah (sunrise), it’s later than kriat hagever. Because apparently vatikin (the diligent ones) pray at netz hachamah, right? Yes. The time comes soon at netz hachamah, apparently.
Is One Obligated to Stay Up All Night?
The thing that one must stay up all night, that’s something… Does it say one is obligated? Simply one must share a custom. Where does it say one is obligated? “Kol halailah” (all night), “kol halailah” means how long? A whole night? But who says one must be up a whole night? Why isn’t it said in the Shulchan Aruch that one must be up a whole night? From where is this taken?
Speaker 2:
Do you want to say something?
Speaker 1:
It’s not in the Shulchan Aruch. It doesn’t say one must be up a whole night. Yes, I thought from not there. If it’s not in the Shulchan Aruch.
The Order of the Sages – Why Does Rabbi Akiva Come Last?
The Toldot Yaakov Yosef asks, Rabbi Akiva was the gadol hador (greatest of the generation), and as many times but entirely first, Rabbi Akiva was a chaver (colleague). One lists there first “ma’aseh b’Rabbi Eliezer v’Rabbi Yehoshua… Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah… Rabbi Akiva…”, Rabbi Akiva comes last. Rabbi Akiva was greater than all the others, as it says in Tosafot. Because Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah was a ba’al meyuchas (of distinguished lineage), “asiri l’Ezra” (tenth generation from Ezra), and he was an ashir (wealthy person), so says Tosafot. But the question still holds, why does he list Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer?
He doesn’t say from where comes the thing that one must be up a whole night, and there it’s something just a story. By the way, the story with Rabbi Eliezer… One sees that the rule is that there is someone who has a measure above. What is the problem? What is the source of staying up a whole night?
The Story of the Exodus from Egypt All Night – The Story of Bnei Brak and Remembering the Exodus from Egypt at Night
The Story of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah in Bnei Brak
Translation
And how does one become? We see that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah… he doesn’t give anything at all. Why do you know now? It’s Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. We see that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was with his children, students who are called children, in a place called Bnei Brak. Where was he? Did he say some Torah teaching? No, he recited the blessing.
Why? Let’s deal with Torah. Torah interests me. The short version of the story is this: the Tosefta says, ah, the language of the Tosefta is “a person is obligated.” So does he bring it? Doesn’t he bring the language that way? The Rav, the Hagahot Maimoniyot didn’t bring it that way? “It is taught in the Tosefta, a person is obligated”? Yes, but what does it say? “A person is obligated to engage in the laws of Pesach.” Where do you see that this is the entire night?
Dispute Regarding Versions in the Tosefta
No, this depends on the version. No, but they bring that “a person is obligated all night.” Even his sons and members of his household. The version isn’t correct in my text. The question arises, is the obligation for the entire night, or is the obligation… No, no, no. In general, in general, why should one be obligated the entire night for this? What is this obligation? Where have we heard such a thing that one must do this the entire night? I don’t understand.
Rabbeinu Yonah brings the Tosefta, he doesn’t say “obligated” the entire night. He says that one is obligated to engage even with his sons and members of his household. Rabbeinu Yonah brings the story that they did it the entire night, but he doesn’t say “obligated” the entire night. The other people I see adding, they… they have the version or understood that the Tosefta says that one is obligated to be up the entire night. This is the source, after all, so says Rabbeinu Yonah, he says one must stay up the entire night, “and they did not fall asleep.” Interesting.
The Rambam doesn’t say it at all. No, he doesn’t say that “whoever increases” is very good. He doesn’t say that one shouldn’t go to sleep.
The Maharal’s Question: How Can One Cause Oneself Distress on Yom Tov?
The Maharal asks a question, how could they have caused themselves distress? It’s Yom Tov, one goes and causes oneself distress and stays awake? It’s very strange. Should we say that there’s a law that one should stay awake? So it says, it says “all night.” In our version of the text it says “all night.” There are those who bring this version. Interesting.
What does the holy Ravyah say? He’s a great mussar authority. I don’t see that it says “all night.” “So it is and some have the custom among other Rishonim.” Those who say until midnight say this. One person, Nirli. It doesn’t make sense that it should be an obligation. They bring the Rosh and the… It’s very strange.
The Rosh’s Interpretation: “All Night” Means Until One Falls Asleep
So the seventh, by the way, there was a version, there were Rishonim whose version was “all night.” Then came the Rosh and he said, “all night” means until one falls asleep. Hello? It means until one falls asleep. Have you ever heard such a thing? A dispute between ourselves.
What kind of obligation should there be for the entire night? After all, it says “and one should examine why they don’t practice this way.” But on the contrary, the “all night” is the opposite. If the time is, if one didn’t manage to fulfill the story of the Exodus from Egypt during the Seder, one can add until morning. This is obvious, just like every mitzvah. Anything done at night, a Mishnah in Megillah says.
No, there are the laws that it must be with matzot and bitter herbs, they learn about it, says the Rema. But there’s no such obligation. Perhaps yes. The obligation is at night. But can’t one fulfill it the entire time? One must speak about the story of the Exodus from Egypt. The entire night is the mitzvah.
The Story Is Not Proof of an Obligation
No, but he brings the story. The story is yes that they were up the entire night, but is the story that it’s an obligation? It’s not that something that happened once becomes an obligation. It’s not that if it was an obligation every year that there was such a story, right? It can’t be. The story shows that it was a special thing. It happened twice, once with Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah and once with Rabbi Eliezer. It happened twice. It’s weak.
Perhaps the opposite, perhaps from the fact that there are two stories. Because one sees that this is how they conducted themselves. Yes, seemingly.
The Main Point of the Story: “Until Their Students Came”
The special thing about these stories is, seemingly, one sees here how they were so engrossed in this until their students came. I don’t see the necessity to be obligated in the mitzvah until their students came. Again… I would need that their stories came. I don’t know, I don’t know. It doesn’t say they were drawn into the Exodus from Egypt. One must be precise, it doesn’t say.
Sometimes what does it say? If it doesn’t need to. Also the great one, R’ Psart, until something stopped it. That from their side they could have… Seemingly, if one wants to say that it needs a story that is told in praise of the sages, that one didn’t even notice. It continued, something similar, or a student should wake them up. They were engrossed. It’s a matter and all the story, they are told in the Gemara. It’s in praise of the sages, how strongly they were engrossed.
But it doesn’t say, one can learn this way. It was something that disturbed them. It wasn’t that they saw, ah, smelled something… It’s the second time, not the first. Both great ones, it’s simple. Until early morning, they went early and prayed. No, it doesn’t mean that. It simply means. It doesn’t mean parts.
The second means, it’s 400 oaths, it’s trying. The meaning is that they were so absorbed that they didn’t catch that it became early morning. It’s also worthwhile, one can learn that it’s simple!!!! One can learn the Mishnah early in the morning! But the great ones, I don’t believe that it means the earliest morning? But I don’t believe that it also means that… They simply heard. You mean, simply until early morning. You can also learn it that way if you want. I don’t know. I hear.
Meshikhi Shemaata – One Can Get Absorbed in Learning
So what should one learn? One should get absorbed. Every matter says meshikhi shemaata. No, it’s a general principle in the Gemara, that when learning one can get absorbed. Forget what time it is. A normal thing. No, yes. It doesn’t seem to you many times. It seems the search for chametz says. Ah, very good. Here I mean meshikhi shemaata. Very good.
On the next night, one must learn the entire night. Before that one must have meshikhi shemaata. Here I mean meshikhi shemaata. It’s late, yes? I have a closed one thirty days before the holiday. It should say, what one means only that it should be a matter of priority, if one can ask. Yes. But many say, what it should be, one should learn the laws of the holiday. They still say to stay up the entire night. If one has already learned from before, one learns it just like that.
Digression: Sha’agat Aryeh and In-Laws
I haven’t heard of any Sha’agat Aryeh with any in-laws back then to make before. You know, you know that there was a Sha’agat Aryeh from that time, you know? A Sha’agat Aryeh from Rabban Gamliel, I mean. It can’t be?
A Night Isn’t Too Long
A night isn’t too long, by the way. You know that a night isn’t too long? People think “an entire night.” An entire night is a few hours, come here. It always seems longer than it is, because when one is tired one loses the sense of time, it’s clearly shorter. No, truly, when a person sits in one place six hours during the day and he learns, he doesn’t feel terribly long. When he does it from twelve o’clock until six o’clock during the day, it sounds like it’s forever. Why? Because you’re tired. Okay, you’re tired. And no, it’s… the entire night.
And what is the good that one does? In short, I don’t understand how people decided to stay up the entire night. It’s some foolishness, it’s an obligation. It’s something more than what happened. It’s not a matter according to the lesson. On one hand someone asks below, on the other hand, I mean that someone asked a question below precisely perhaps if one is obligated in genizah for such lessons, such things. But… okay, next.
“Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah Said to Them” – Remembering the Exodus from Egypt at Night
What did Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah say here, and how does this fit in? Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to them, “Behold, I am like a seventy-year-old man and I did not merit that the Exodus from Egypt should be said at night. Aha. Until Ben Zoma expounded, ‘as it says, “In order that you remember the day of your departure from the land of Egypt all the days of your life.” “The days of your life” – the days, “all the days of your life” – to include the nights.’
This means, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said that during the day there is certainly a mitzvah to mention the Exodus from Egypt. It doesn’t mean the story of the Exodus from Egypt, it means some matter of remembering the Exodus from Egypt every single day, a different mitzvah. Eh, to mention the mitzvah? In the Laws of Reciting Shema the Rambam brings that it’s a mitzvah in itself.
Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to them, “Behold, I am like a seventy-year-old man, and I did not merit that the Exodus from Egypt should be said at night, until Ben Zoma expounded, as it says ‘in order that you remember the day of your departure from the land of Egypt all the days of your life.’ ‘The days of your life’ – the days, ‘all the days of your life’ – to include the nights. And the Sages say: ‘the days of your life’ – this world, ‘all the days of your life’ – to include the days of Mashiach.”
Discussion: The Connection to the Story of Bnei Brak
By them they held that there’s no mitzvah at night.
– Exactly, because by Kriat Shema we’re talking about something else. So what did they do then? So what did they do that one night, that one night of Pesach they did do. If one would do every night, one wouldn’t…
– No, one doesn’t need to connect anything. What is the connection between this and that they stayed up the entire night and learned?
– It has no connection?
– I don’t know. “Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to them” – speaks as a continuation of the story.
– Ah, the Haggadah made it like a continuation. I don’t mean that the Haggadah actually tells that it makes it like a continuation.
– The Haggadah is aggadot, yes. The Haggadah is aggadot, and in our Haggadot it doesn’t say “said to them.”
– No.
– Simply, just as one mentions Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, one mentions something about the story of the Exodus from Egypt.
– Obviously, obviously, yes. No. Exactly, yes.
– Ah, exactly. I don’t know. It could be, I think it could be that there’s no necessity at all. One must remember that this is… ah, I said earlier, “whoever increases in telling the story, behold this is praiseworthy.”
– And what?
– “Whoever increases in telling the story, behold this is praiseworthy.”
– Very good. But now we’re talking about an obligation like this.
This Is a Mishnah in Berachot
This is a Mishnah in Berachot. Gentlemen, let’s be “real.” It’s a Mishnah in Berachot.
– Yes, really? It’s a Mishnah in Berachot? Very good.
– And the Mishnah speaks about… about saying the section of…
– Emet V’yatziv.
– Emet V’yatziv? The Mishnah speaks about the matter that one reads three sections of Kriat Shema at night. “Vayomer.”
– So, this is the Mishnah. Really?
– There’s a question about tzitzit, because tzitzit one is not actually obligated at night.
– One doesn’t read it because of tzitzit.
– That’s a good point. The Mishnah says “we mention the Exodus from Egypt at night.” This is the language of the Mishnah. This is the simple meaning. And this says “we mention the Exodus from Egypt at night.” Says the Mishnah of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. This is the Mishnah. No less and no more.
What is the Mishnah talking about? The Haggadah inserted here a Mishnah because it connects, but seemingly it’s not actually from the Haggadah. You understand? And the Rambam learns that it’s not the Rambam.
Remembering the Exodus from Egypt at Night – The Mishnah of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah and the Rambam’s Approach
The Mishnah “We Mention the Exodus from Egypt at Night”
Speaker 1: This is a good proof.
The Mishnah says “we mention the Exodus from Egypt at night”. There seemingly the Mishnah doesn’t speak about the section. This is what “we mention the Exodus from Egypt at night” means. The Mishnah of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. This is what the Mishnah says. No less and no more.
What is the Mishnah talking about? The Haggadah inserted here a Mishnah because it connects, but seemingly it’s not actually from the Haggadah, right?
The Rambam’s Approach: The Section of Tzitzit at Night Is About the Exodus from Egypt, Not About Tzitzit
And the Rambam learns that the Exodus from Egypt is not about tzitzit. Why not? Because he says because tzitzit is not at night, because it says “and you shall see it”. But since we want to bring the Exodus from Egypt, we do say it.
But it’s a very interesting thing, because if tzitzit is in order to bring the Exodus from Egypt, and one doesn’t need to wear tzitzit at night, you have here a new problem that the mitzvah is not at night.
Speaker 2: No, no, one simply brings a small… There are a few reasons why one says this section. One of the reasons…
Speaker 1: No, no, but one doesn’t read it because of the mitzvah of tzitzit. The principle is that one doesn’t read it because of the mitzvah of tzitzit. One reads it because of the Exodus from Egypt. Because of several other reasons.
But this is one of the reasons why one says the section with tzitzit, is because it says there “I am Hashem your God who took you out from the land of Egypt”, and that’s all.
Seemingly one doesn’t say it at night, but one does say it at night, because a dispute was given. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said that there’s a hint that one should read Kriat Shema and one should say the Exodus from Egypt at night, until Ben Zoma came.
Laws Don’t Come From Verses – An Important Principle
Here one sees, by the way, here one sees the thing that yes, that the simple meaning is not that the laws come from the verses, right? That the laws come from how one expounds the verses. No, that they don’t come from how one expounds the verses.
Because the Mishnah already said earlier, the Mishnah already said earlier that one reads the Exodus from Egypt at night, right? Do you understand?
Speaker 2: I didn’t hear exactly, or the translation of “lo zachiti” is not “lo nitzachti,” I couldn’t bring a proof, I held this way also.
Speaker 1: One brings verses for one of two reasons.
Speaker 2: The Rambam says the translation completely differently.
Speaker 1: Be good, because as you say it’s so good, because the Rambam says mitzvah… how does the Rambam say… one must say by day and by night… correct?
Speaker 2: What are you talking about?
Speaker 1: When Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah made the obligation still before he found the exposition, the simple meaning is all the story didn’t actually derive it.
Speaker 2: Exactly.
Speaker 1: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said, I am like a seventy-year-old man, not actually seventy years old, but because he’s the story from the morning prayer. Not the exposition that it sees the exposition on the matter of the deed not and the matter of the workers. And it says not. It has the law the exposition what it says the matter and it says not. And it then said the exposition, that it says the son of Rabbi had to go the exposition, in every way how is the matter has already been able to introduce the enactment over the course of years. I am only establishing the enactment.
Speaker 2: No, no.
Speaker 1: It says, this is the translation of the word, “and I did not merit”? The simple translation. In what matter is the translation? What do they say in general is and “I did not merit,” and I have I and didn’t I have? It is somehow to him been, what? His is not needed any verse. Or sir.
Discussion: What Does “Lo Zachiti” Mean?
The language of merit wasn’t been – that is, says the Hagahot HaRav from, in the Mishnayot his I knew that a merit a merit a merit to know the hint in the verse.
Another simple meaning can be merit a merit a merit he says, Rabbi David, he uses he says, Rabbi David, “and the sun rose”, this is not clear.
Ah, there are those who say that it’s from the language of “won in judgment,” as he says about a non-Jew. But what is the word? What is the word?
So first of all like this, so what is the simple meaning that the others who said, why does the Rambam ask the question, why must one say Kriat Shema? What is the simple meaning? Seemingly it’s clear that one must yes, he already said it. Or he held that one says. But what?
The Rambam’s Approach: The Exodus from Egypt at Night Is Rabbinic, Not Biblical
Two things, or as the Rambam said that many things, I will perhaps actually about this the Rambam didn’t hold that it’s a mitzvah, because he understood that the verse is not a true verse. It’s rabbinic, says the Rambam, rabbinic, but not biblical, actually.
And he simply brought this verse that one should say Kriat Shema, one should say the Exodus from Egypt at night. This is one thing. Right? This is one thing.
Why did he also say rabbinic? As others have said, he said that one makes it biblical, according to how he can’t make biblical laws.
And if it would have been, listen, according to the Rambam, one can’t make biblical laws, one can’t make them, why not? Because always when one derives something from a verse, it remains under rabbinic words, one can’t make new biblical laws.
What can one do? One can make rabbinic laws.
What is another thing that one can do? When one searches for verses, what does one do? What does the Gemara say when one searches for proof that an etrog is an etrog? What does the Gemara do there?
Nothing! The Torah has such a concept of mechochmas hakasuv that it hints, and it’s only a hint, and it doesn’t come from the learning. True? That’s how the Ramban interprets “bluz hachushi” [only the sensory]. It didn’t become one now with finding a verse. It’s only a hint.
Halacha Like Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya – A Question
By the way, if the halacha is like Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, seemingly the halacha should be like the Chachamim, like yachid v’rabim [an individual versus the majority], no? And who says that the halacha is at all like Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya? Seemingly one shouldn’t.
Speaker 2: The guest is certainly fake in the sense that the Haggadah puts it together, it wasn’t really so. But if not, one can say that the opinion of the Chachamim they agreed with, not a dispute of opinions.
Speaker 1: I don’t understand, there’s an old dispute.
Speaker 2: Anyways, the story is certainly not authentic, I mean it didn’t happen exactly that way. It’s a Mishna in Berachos, the opinions that the Haggadah puts together, just to make the story nicer, according to all opinions, according to my interpretation, according to my opinion, I don’t know.
Speaker 1: In short, I don’t understand what he’s saying.
Speaker 2: Ah, he means to say the opposite, very good. There are those who learn that after finding the learning one does, but it doesn’t fit.
Speaker 1: They all say that this is a term for the Rabbanan, language of victory. That’s what the commentators say here. So what will one answer?
According to this it comes out, anyways, what I’m saying is the second thing. Either it’s simple that everyone agrees that it’s not d’oraisa, I mean that the Rambam holds perhaps it’s not d’oraisa, I don’t know exactly.
Or it’s simple something else. Or it’s simple that verses one brings in order to show, you understand? Everyone has fear of a verse, I need to be precise in the verse. But truly I hold this way just so. Why do I hold this way just so? I don’t know.
Discussion: The Dispute Between Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya and the Chachamim
Or perhaps, I descended completely, but it says “Chachamim omrim”, I don’t understand. After they brought the verse they admitted?
No, they didn’t admit. It says “Chachamim omrim… l’asid lavo”. So, I don’t understand. I don’t understand what… How is the halacha? The halacha is that one must say yetzias Mitzrayim at night?
I mean that the Rambam doesn’t rule this further. Perhaps he rules it as derabbanan, it doesn’t cost anything. Perhaps not as d’oraisa.
Rashi’s Position Regarding the Story
Also Rashi said explicitly that it wasn’t at night. Rashi says that this was “bayom,” which was seventy years, which he compared there. Rashi both in Berachos and here.
Speaker 2: What’s the question on the story? It was Pesach.
Speaker 1: So no, it doesn’t cost anything. Let’s go backwards. Again, the story was an incident there. It was also Pesach. If you want already.
Speaker 2: It wasn’t Pesach.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, I hear. I hear. Because one can say that… very nice.
Summary: The Rashbatz’s Answer
Baruch HaMakom baruch Hu, baruch HaMakom baruch Hu. There are indeed those who say that the Chachamim are also essentially admitting, the Rashbatz brings it. They just didn’t agree to the deduction. But essentially he already…
Discussion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s Position on Remembering Yetzias Mitzrayim — Chipazon of Egypt and the Days of Mashiach
The Foundation of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s Position: Chipazon of Egypt
Speaker 1:
There are indeed those who say that the Chachamim were also essentially admitting. The Rashba brings it, they just didn’t agree to his deduction, but essentially… No, it’s difficult. It’s not so implied, that’s what he also says. It’s not such a good explanation. But that’s what some want to argue.
It makes sense, yes, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya is the one who holds that one must until midnight. Why? Because he holds chipazon d’Mitzrayim, right? Yes? Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya is the one who says that one must eat the matza before midnight, the Pesach before midnight, because one learns chipazon d’Mitzrayim, right? Yes? Right? Do you know what I’m talking about?
Speaker 2:
No.
Speaker 1:
There’s a Gemara in Berachos, there’s such a place. There’s such a place that says so. The Gemara says so, one. Listen. This is because the… How is it called? It’s a Gemara in… right? A Gemara in Berachos daf tes amud alef. The Gemara discusses that one is obligated to eat the korban Pesach before midnight.
“V’achlu es habasar balaylah hazeh.” Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya omer, ne’emar kan “balaylah hazeh” v’ne’emar l’halan “v’avarti b’eretz Mitzrayim balaylah hazeh,” mah l’halan ad chatzos, af kan ad chatzos. Rabbi Akiva omer, ne’emar kan “balaylah hazeh” v’ne’emar l’halan “ki im hatzon v’habakar ya’amdu,” mah l’halan ad haboker, af kan ad haboker. Amar Rabbi Akiva, im ken lama ne’emar “b’chipazon”? Ad she’as chipazon.
So the Gemara explains, ika beinaihu, that one was forced. We’re not talking about any pursuit of the Jews. “Vatechezak Mitzrayim al ha’am” it says explicitly in the verse. They didn’t chase after them, they told the Jews they should leave.
Rabbi Akiva holds “chipazon Yisrael,” the Jews ran out. Therefore he holds that one can until early morning, because that’s when the Jews actually left, according to the Jews.
The Connection Between Chipazon of Egypt and Remembering Yetzias Mitzrayim at Night
In any case, what is the matter? It’s because the verse that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says, the Rishonim already say this, the Rishonim already write what he says. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya when he says that one must mention yetzias Mitzrayim at night, this comes from the fact that truly there is a verse, it says “asher hotzeisicha me’eretz Mitzrayim laylah,” there is a verse. And although on this verse one must struggle according to Rabbi Akiva, according to one way how one learned there then, it was so.
In any case, it’s not exactly as stated in the Rambam. No, it’s not stated, it was stated “b’vehilasecha,” that it enters at night, which then he was. Right. And regarding this he indeed holds only until midnight, and regarding this one must finish the matza before midnight. Very good.
But Rabbi Akiva, he holds that he means “chipazon d’Yisrael,” therefore he holds that one must day and night, therefore he obligates, when he says that “kol yemei chayecha” is to bring in the days of Mashiach, not necessarily at night. Yes, right. Therefore he can… therefore he doesn’t need that verse, one can derive it from another verse, one doesn’t need that verse, because we don’t know that one can derive it from that.
No, he says, regarding this he holds that yetzias Mitzrayim was during the day, the main yetzias Mitzrayim is during the day. It’s a dispute about the main yetzias Mitzrayim, about the main thing that’s relevant to us here, I know what. The Gemara says “hakol modim” that there’s a difference, but in practice, by him it was in the early morning. And remembering happens until early morning. The chipazon means until early morning, and the situation that connects with the chipazon, I don’t know exactly how it connects. But in any case, according to this he holds that the main remembering of yetzias Mitzrayim is in the morning.
The Deduction of Ben Zoma Is Only to Convince the Chachamim
According to this one can also understand, the students came and said that one must say Krias Shema of Shacharis. Krias Shema also comes with the remembering of yetzias Mitzrayim of Shacharis. So all opinions until now were according to the position of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya that at night, but now it’s already early morning, so according to all opinions one must remember yetzias Mitzrayim, one must say Krias Shema. It’s already too many theories, in any case, too complicated halachos.
In any case, this is only a proof to explain that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya held that one must at night already before he held the kal. The kal is only a deduction to convince the Chachamim, but he himself held so because he held in general that yetzias Mitzrayim was mainly at night.
Digression: Bar Kochba and Bnei Brak
There’s the reasoning that Rabbi Akiva held that Ben Koziva is Mashiach, but they had to convince that “kol chacham lev yamusu Mashiach,” that also now one must… It could be that they were in Bnei Brak because that was near the border, in order to be able God forbid to flee from Bnei Brak to the rebels of Bar Kochba. This I don’t know.
The Discussion About the Days of Mashiach and Nullification of Remembering Yetzias Mitzrayim
And on this the Gemara says that it should be that it won’t be nullified, it will indeed be nullified, the question is whether it will indeed be nullified in the future in the days of Mashiach. Yes.
One must connect why the “even” is only main, that it’s certain that in the future yetzias Mitzrayim will be only optional. It has to do with something, it has to do with this.
Discussion: Purim and the New Miracles in the Future
Speaker 2:
Aron said he should him. Purim one means today, Purim one doesn’t mean so I think. Purim one means to say the latest miracles, today’s miracles. That’s what I’m afraid. That’s what I’m afraid.
Speaker 1:
Ah, according to this it fits very well, because what the Gemara says how will one remember in the future the new miracles, “hinei yamim ba’im,” yes, that whole sugya, “lo yomru od chai Hashem asher he’elah es bnei Yisrael me’eretz Mitzrayim.” No, they are secondary, like Yaakov, Avraham and Avraham etc., it remains secondary. In this Purim is the main, or whatever, in the future is the main, and this is secondary. In this today what we do the redemption, this connects all through the matter. Today what we do is only about the fact, and it belongs to yetzias Mitzrayim. In the future, when the salvation will be a broad salvation, one won’t speak about Egypt so much.
Discussion: The Connection Between Night-Remembering and Nullification in the Days of Mashiach
One can perhaps make, according to the wisdom one can make, what Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya not. The one who says that in the future Mashiach won’t be lacking, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds that one will only remember the new miracles. He says that the one who holds that one must at night say yetzias Mitzrayim holds that when Mashiach comes one doesn’t need to. Why? I don’t know. Is there a reasoning in this? I don’t know why. A lousy reasoning, I mean to say. Because… what’s the meaning? Because he holds that the chipazon means at night, the chipazon is Egypt. If Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would have held like Rabbi Akiva, his calculation could have fit that… the opposite. If the chipazon is Egypt, then I don’t know, I have no answer in this now. It’s good. But think that it has to do with this. Wasn’t it established there? It’s good, I don’t know. Let’s put it aside. One can perhaps ask me.
Conclusion of the Matter of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya
Okay, so, until here the matter of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Okay. Baruch HaMakom, already. Now one can begin the Haggadah.
Discussion: Why Did the Students Say One Must Say Krias Shema?
But I just want first one thing, a bit different. What is this? One must explain that they were engaged all night in halachos, they didn’t even mention that the Almighty took Jews out of Egypt. And the students come and say, “Raboseinu, it’s already coming morning, one must remember Mincha etc., k’hayom hazeh, asher hotzi Hashem eschem me’eretz Mitzrayim.”
One doesn’t need to! If one fulfills with halachos, one can fulfill in the early morning also with halachos. The Gemara says explicitly that Rebbi would review a teaching two hundred times. If one fulfills with this.
Speaker 2:
No, but that’s not the halacha, that’s not the halacha. One always remembers. It doesn’t say. One discusses halachos, I don’t read books.
Speaker 1:
Have you ever had such a thing that there was a chassid who always remembered that there was a fire, a fire, a fire? Certainly not. One fulfills such a thing.
Speaker 2:
Listen, no, certainly not. Certainly not. Certainly not. It’s a part, he’s talking, he’s remembering. Let’s already hear from this. The Gemara says explicitly that one fulfills. One can learn.
Speaker 1:
Listen, this is simply our chassidim who used to say Tikkun Chatzos, they said “nachem,” “rachem,” not “nachem.” What one must say the text that’s in the siddur, that’s only for the simple Jews who can’t learn.
Digression: The Story with Tikkun Chatzos and Jerusalem
I once heard that a tzaddik asked a Jew if he says Tikkun Chatzos, he said yes, he says. He asked him if he’s ever been in Jerusalem, he said no. He said, “If you say Tikkun Chatzos, how can you say ‘ircha Yerushalayim’? You don’t know what you’re talking about.” But that’s another story.
I heard that there was an exact number, he meant to bring the redemption as a minyan. One hundred percent. But certainly, the whole thing that one must say the text is only for the one who doesn’t know. From this one sees exactly the opposite, a wisdom.
Discussion: The Difference Between Krias Shema and Tefillah
Speaker 2:
Krias Shema. Yes, it’s indeed a question, why must one say Krias Shema? Yes, I don’t know. They discuss this, but I don’t know clearly.
Speaker 1:
Krias Shema is a mitzvah d’oraisa, it enters into the matter of osek b’mitzvah patur min hamitzvah. But here from Krias Shema, seemingly one is not exempt. That’s how it appears. That’s how it appears. But one knows that the Gemara indeed says yes, that Rabbi Shimon and his colleagues are exempt from Krias Shema.
Speaker 2:
Not from Krias Shema, from tefillah.
Speaker 1:
From tefillah, ah. Krias Shema they are obligated, regarding this he says “talmidim in kever Zerubavel.” It doesn’t say exertion by tefillah. It’s very important.
Speaker 2:
What comes first? There’s no difference, he must pray, he doesn’t need to.
The Ohr Sameach’s Position on the Mitzvah of Remembering
In short, the Ohr Sameach indeed says that the Rambam holds that there’s no mitzvah of forgetting every day as I argue, only with the Rabbanan. And he brings that according to some such foundation it comes out that the mitzvah of forgetting is not a mitzvah.
Speaker 2:
Okay, so the Wednesday one is nullified? Weird. Seemingly Pesach also should have been nullified. I don’t know. Not good. Not a good option.
Transition to the Main Part of the Haggadah
Speaker 1:
Okay, let’s continue.
Okay, so now we’re going to begin to fill the dark order, okay? Baruch HaMakom.
The Rambam’s Haggadah: Baruch HaMakom, Four Sons, and the Role of the Wise Son
Baruch HaMakom — Introduction to the Haggadah
Speaker 1: Okay, so the mitzvah of tzedakah is nullified? Weird. At least it will also be nullified, I don’t know, not good, not a good explanation. Okay, let’s continue.
Already, now one begins to fill the Haggadah, okay. Baruch HaMakom. Baruch HaMakom is the blessing on Torah? One must say the blessing on Torah, one begins to learn. One says Baruch HaMakom. See, I can also now say, you meant that one must say Baruch Atah Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam? I can say Baruch HaMakom shenasan Torah l’amo Yisrael baruch Hu. The Rambam characterized the Torah, Baruch HaMakom is the wonder that the Torah managed to be for everyone. The weak with the Torah, the same Torah is good for everyone. According to the drash. A simple meaning, one doesn’t mean the blessing on Torah, one begins to learn, like the blessing on Torah.
Okay, Baruch HaMakom shenasan Torah l’amo Yisrael baruch Hu. See, every time one goes to learn one says a blessing that’s connected with this. By us it says twice Baruch HaMakom, the Rambam doesn’t say twice. Actually it could be that when one says the words Baruch HaMakom shenasan Torah l’amo Yisrael baruch Hu, one fulfills the entire story of yetzias Mitzrayim, because the Rambam says at the end “vayavo’u l’makom avodaso,” at the end we received the Torah, one couldn’t have received the Torah without leaving Egypt.
Corresponding to Four Sons the Torah Spoke
Okay, first one goes to learn. See, both by our Haggados there are also halachos, they already have the whole piece, it’s actually not a Haggadah, it’s halacha, one says Torah thoughts on this because one doesn’t want to learn, but it’s actually halacha, all these midrash halacha. K’neged arba’ah banim dibrah Torah: echad chacham, v’echad rasha, v’echad tam, v’echad she’eino yodei’a lish’ol. The Torah speaks about all sons.
Discussion: “Mah Hu Omer” — What Does the Wise Son Say or What Does the Torah Say?
Speaker 1: Chacham mah hu omer? What does the verse say about this? What does the wise son say?
Speaker 2: No, no, no, the verse says, the verse quotes his questions.
Speaker 1: Ah, what does the wise son say?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: It means yes, because the verse… he says words of Torah, the Torah spoke, “mah yomar,” what did the Torah say. But here it should have said “b’chacham mah yomar,” or something like that. All the wise men said… and it’s correct, because it says “she’eino yodei’a lish’ol at petach lo,” it doesn’t say “mah yomar.” If it meant what does the Torah say about him, it should have said the same language.
The Wise Son — Like the Laws of Pesach
Okay, I mean that simply the plain meaning is as he says, that here it fits very well that for the chacham (wise one) one should do halachos (laws), as is known, the best thing is that one learns halachos, just as Rabban Gamliel did, and just as Rabbi Akiva also did, because we see “Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to them,” they afterwards delved into the mitzvos (commandments) of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim (the telling of the Exodus from Egypt), and the halacha of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim at night. And you also see the chacham, one tells him “ve’af atah emor lo k’hilchos haPesach” (and you too tell him according to the laws of Pesach). “B’hilchos” (with laws) is what I have.
Speaker 2: Yes, it says in the Rambam, the girsa (version) of the Rambam.
Speaker 1: That other girsa is fake.
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: Yes. I didn’t know about this, I know, it’s fake, something is fake.
The Sugya of Rabbi Akiva and His Colleagues
But this is a good pshat (explanation), that it appears that the mitzvah in the best way is that they learn the deep Torah, the hilchos haPesach. And this is what Rabban Gamliel did, and this is what Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues did, according to the girsa of the Rambam “Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to them,” that they delved into that sugya (Talmudic discussion) that night.
It’s also very good, because by the hilchos chag b’chag (laws of the holiday on the holiday) it appears that there is a general hilchos chag b’chag, and then there is a specific hilchos chag b’chag, that on the second day yom tov one should speak about halachos that are relevant to the second day yom tov. But here they spoke literally about this, there is a mitzvah, they sat an entire night and they were engaged in the halachos of the mitzvah of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim at night.
Discussion: Hilchos Chag B’chag — General and Specific
Speaker 2: There is a halacha of learning inyanei shalosh regalim b’chag (matters of the three festivals on the holiday), and here specifically what is relevant now, one should speak about what is relevant to the second day yom tov, what is relevant now.
Speaker 1: Yes, but not in the form of a psak (halachic ruling) of what to do. But here they delved, it’s not relevant now, because leil Pesach (Pesach night) is certainly a mitzvah of sippur according to the Rambam, but they delved into something that is relevant, it is now at night, so now one must judge the sugya whether at night one must mention yetzias Mitzrayim. It could be that the sugya lasted an entire night, they brought all kinds of proofs back and forth, and our forefathers made a short version.
Speaker 2: Nu nu.
Speaker 1: Because “lo zachisi” (I did not merit) can also mean that an entire night they were arguing, and lo zachisi, I didn’t arrive until the end of the night.
Ben Zoma’s Name
Speaker 1: Okay, where is this? How do you know this? Because Ben Zoma wasn’t one of the chachamim there. One must put him in. Let’s put him into the story.
Speaker 2: It’s fine.
Speaker 1: It could be, we become aware here of Ben Zoma’s first name, which doesn’t appear in other places, he was called Rabbi Shimon ben Zoma. I think we know that he was called Shimon.
Speaker 2: Yes, Shimon was the cause with him. We don’t know his first name? Ben Zoma appears, we don’t know his first name.
Speaker 1: No, Ben Zoma is a well-known name. I don’t know if yes or you don’t know. I think we do know. He was called Shimon ben Zoma. I don’t know if it’s on Google, I don’t know. How do we know he was called Shimon? It’s written somewhere. Shimon ben Zoma, Shimon ben Azzai, yes.
There is an interpretation that Ben Zoma says “eizehu chacham halomed mikol adam” (who is wise? One who learns from every person), because he could learn even from slaves, Ben Azzai was young. Anyway. It says in Maseches Avos, I’m just saying, Ben Zoma says, “eizehu chacham halomed mikol adam”. Okay.
The Rasha — “Mah Ha’avodah Hazos Lachem”
This is the chacham. Rasha mah hu omer, “mah ha’avodah hazos lachem” (The wicked one, what does he say, “what is this service to you”). What is the plain meaning of this whole thing?
Discussion: Why Don’t We Ask a Psak in Hilchos HaPesach?
Speaker 2: Hey, by hilchos haPesach, why don’t we ask a psak in hilchos haPesach? He’s talking about hilchos haPesach.
Speaker 1: This is the rabbis. A chacham doesn’t need a psak. A chacham knows k’hilchos haPesach. Your chacham doesn’t mean mikra (Scripture), he’s not a baal mikra. He is a baal Talmud. He’s not a baal mikra, he needs a psak. But we tell him Mishnah, we tell him Talmud. A Mishnah. We tell him the hilchos haPesach, we tell him the Mishnah, the halacha. K’hilchos haPesach doesn’t mean that. K’hilchos haPesach is what it says.
Speaker 2: No, no, you’re not right. But what is the inyan (matter)? He’s asking about the din (law) from the Mishnah that already says, “ein maftirin achar haPesach afikoman” (we don’t conclude after the Pesach offering with afikoman).
“Kafar Ba’ikar” — The Rasha Has Excluded Himself
Speaker 1: V’rasha mah hu omer mah ha’avodah hazos lachem, lachem v’lo lo, ulfi shehotzi es atzmo min haklal kafar ba’ikar (And the wicked one, what does he say, what is this service to you, to you and not to him, and because he excluded himself from the community he denied the fundamental principle).
Speaker 2: Yes, this is a mistake what you’re saying. It says plainly kafar.
Speaker 1: Do you remember what we spoke about?
Speaker 2: Yes, hotzi es atzmo min haklal, kafar ba’ikar. With what he says “lachem,” it means that he doesn’t have the thing of seeing himself as if he went out of Egypt, and he’s not part of the thing.
Speaker 1: No, the word is, by the way, the word “hakheih” (blunt) means literally blunt in his language. Why does he say “lachem”? Why does he say “lachem” and it implies that he excluded himself? Who are you? Aren’t you part of the thing? He is already apart. He’s not even a talmid (student).
Speaker 2: Yes.
“Li V’lo Lo” — A Retort
Speaker 1: So, we answer him with the same coin. “Li v’lo lo” (For me and not for him). What is the strength? “V’ilu hayah sham lo hayah nigal” (And if he had been there he would not have been redeemed). We poke him. It’s nothing, it’s not a claim. Also to me a claim this. It’s a retort. You can retort back to him. You meant the first retort?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: It’s a nice retort. I mean, with an oved Hashem (servant of God) you can’t, if someone will start telling me, “Father, I want to tell you such and such a thing,” I’ll get nervous and run away. Very good. You’re sharp, you’re sharp, we speak sharply. Very good. I already said so what someone just told me. It doesn’t say, not like the Lubavitchers say, a rasha, give him a hug. Hug him already on the head, hug. He’s looking for hugs? Hugs should the Chassidic Jews get. They need hugs. A rasha can take sharp truth. You say “lachem,” I say “li.” No problem. “Lachem,” “li,” you, that one, us, you all. You all frum, and you all free. You all are the you all.
Anyway, I wanted to say that he adds well, “ilu hayah sham lo hayah nigal”. Ah, you’re not? No, it means so, ah, you’re not? No problem, you can stay in Egypt. What do we do further? Stay in Egypt further.
Discussion: “Vachamushim Alu” — Did Eighty Percent of Jews Perish?
Speaker 2: It fits with “vachamushim alu” (and armed they went up), that not all Jews went out.
Speaker 1: No, no, it’s not a certain thing. God forbid, that chamushim alu one must investigate. It doesn’t say, one must burn it. One must burn it, it doesn’t say so. Es asher to’afeh efu, you must put it in again. It can’t be. I don’t believe that you said it.
Speaker 2: Yes, that you didn’t tell me.
Speaker 1: Because then it comes out that it wasn’t really a miracle when there was yetzias Mitzrayim, because only a small portion of the Jews were saved. It’s not a normal thing.
But also more than that, because if you say so, then you’re actually right for the rasha. The rasha says, “I have sympathy with the eighty percent.” We don’t want, we want that the rasha should yes feel a part. It’s only a retort. If we didn’t want the rasha to be part in “li v’lo lo,” we wouldn’t have started with him at all. He does yes have a part, we only want to give him a retort. The whole difference of part and not part is modern. He is a rasha, and he deserves a slap. When I say the rasha, I would have said, “I sympathize with the eighty percent who weren’t saved, and I am from theirs, I mourn them, I try today Tisha B’Av because eighty percent.” But you don’t love the fifty.
Anyway, it’s yes. I tell you a rule, it’s nonsense. One must uproot a root. Even “v’hi she’amdah la’avoseinu” (and it is this that has stood by our fathers), you know how the Rebbe says, one can say about things that stand that they don’t stand if it’s not Torah. I say that this is not a true Chazal (our Sages), it’s not written anywhere. It’s something a maskil (enlightened one) wrote in. Except the Gemara from ehrliche (honest) Jews, talmidei chachamim (Torah scholars). How should the thing go in? Even Reb Moshe talmid chacham.
Speaker 2: Yes, but the thing is, do you have to answer everything at once? There is a talmid chacham who wrote it.
“Shelo Echad Bilvad Amad Aleinu” — Two Types of Seder Nights
Speaker 1: Anyway, this is “durchim v’leilos” (through and nights). Very good. Eliyahu, “shelo echad bilvad amad aleinu” (not only one has stood against us). Ah, it says frightening things there. It’s interesting. I mean, perhaps it’s like we started, even “kol hamarbeh lesaper harei zeh meshubach” (whoever elaborates on the telling is praiseworthy), this is one extreme. And the other extreme is even when it’s not, and you’re engaged with rasha, chacham, tam, she’eino yodea lishol. Two types of seder nights. I mean that the simple idea of this is something like that the verse already foresaw that there will be sometimes peace, and you shouldn’t become lost. It already says in the verse also. You thought that you’re the first who says a word that is consolation. It’s not the first.
Speaker 2: Yes, this is not a Chassidic interpretation.
Speaker 1: Ah, it’s a simple interpretation.
Speaker 2: Yes, it’s a simple interpretation.
Speaker 1: No, but it’s a simple interpretation that says that he is a lamdan (scholar), he was a whole time, and according to knowledge he wasn’t on a teacher, this is the same source.
Four Sons, She’eino Yodea Lishol, Yachol MeRosh Chodesh
Continuation: The Rasha Son – Simple Interpretation
That the simple idea of this is simply like the verse already foresaw that there will be sometimes reshaim, we become lost, it already says in the verse also. He thought that you’re the first who says a word, the one who is after him… You’re not the first! Yes, this is not a Chassidic interpretation. No, it’s a simple interpretation. Yes, it’s a simple interpretation.
No, but it’s a simple interpretation that says that we learn the whole time, and according to the understanding of the son one teaches him, this is like the source, and according to the understanding of the rasha one shouts at him. Okay, the tam (simple one) one tells him so, it’s a simple question, “mah ha’avodah hazos lachem?” is a simple answer. Very good, true.
The Rasha Son – “HaGadol” and Yetzer Hara
And we see here also, we’re speaking here seemingly about one who became nervous at eighteen, yes? I mean, he is a gadol (adult), yes? We don’t praise yet no yetzer hara (evil inclination), not yet a rasha. Only now the yetzer hara came up. I hear a question. He has a concern with the question of yetzer hara. And indeed, here we see that it’s not necessarily a chacham also, it doesn’t necessarily mean a child against an adult chacham. It speaks here a…
The Difference Between the Four Sons – What Each One Gets
But the question is, why must we tell him… a chacham! Why does it say specifically to him, the child who asks, or she’eino yodea lishol? But yes, we’re not… now you’ve caught yourself that this is essentially the same halacha from that one, and including the halacha that even chachamim ask each other, is much simpler in this topic. That the lesson is not only a practical thing, whoever not only…
Both! No difference. I’m just saying that it’s a different obligation. This one gets hilchos haPesach, a second one gets praises, a third one gets the story, and the fourth is because he doesn’t ask at all, because there is no question.
She’eino Yodea Lishol – “At Petach Lo”
Yes, “at petach lo” (you open for him) because there is no question. “At petach lo” means you start the question, you start opening the things. Seemingly the “at petach lo” is this the source of the techeles v’agozim (blue and nuts). “Petach” means like “patach v’amar” (he opened and said), right? You start the conversation yourself. You don’t wait for him to ask a question, because he doesn’t ask the question, he doesn’t ask.
Discussion: What Does “At Petach Lo” Mean?
Speaker 1: You want him to just speak to him? Does this mean that he should tell him yetzias Mitzrayim and when it comes to the wisdom he shouldn’t?
Speaker 2: Simply, he needs a beginning. It’s simple. I mean there he brings a verse, I don’t know. He opens the verses with him. There’s no difference. I’m not saying he can’t. I’m saying simply, every thing must have a beginning. Every thing must have a petach (opening). You can’t, “Hello, I’m telling you a drasha (sermon).” Ah, there’s a verse, that’s the opening. Or there’s a question, that’s the opening. Here there is one who doesn’t ask, you must open for him yourself, and it could actually be that the… that you make him be a questioner, is part of the point of this “at petach lo”, from this… You find a way how to engage him with the techeles v’agozim. Is there a difference?
Speaker 1: I believe he wants to make him curious, he should want to hear the story.
Speaker 2: I didn’t say anything about curious. I didn’t say anything about what you’re saying. I’m saying that a story must start somewhere. You can’t say and say and say. I mean it’s a normal thing. Every thing has a beginning and an end and a middle. It doesn’t make sense to tell. This is already psychology with chinuch (education), that he should be curious. I don’t know. It’s yes also a reason.
The Verse of She’eino Yodea Lishol Is the Same as by the Rasha
Okay. The verse of the she’eino yodea lishol is by the way the same verse from the rasha, yes, you know? What is the same verse? “Ba’avur zeh asah Hashem li” (Because of this Hashem did for me). The answer is not crooked. The answer to the rasha, it says “mah ha’avodah hazos lachem”, the answer is “va’amartem zevach Pesach hu laHashem” (and you shall say it is a Pesach offering to Hashem). The Haggadah skipped that answer completely, and brought a different verse that says “ba’avur zeh asah Hashem li”.
In Chassidus they will say that we don’t answer the rasha’s question. He says, let’s go down to a level. But you know what, I don’t know the pshat. One must struggle, to uncover the other versions, in Sifrei Yerushalmi, how one arranges all these verses and the like. I don’t know, simply pshat I don’t know at this minute.
I’ll give you a question, understand?
Okay, further.
“Yachol MeRosh Chodesh” – When Is the Obligation of Sippur
“V’higadeta l’vincha” (And you shall tell your son) is “yachol merosh chodesh” (could it be from Rosh Chodesh). What I understand here, seemingly there must be an inyan (matter). I made the simanim (signs). When “v’higadeta l’vincha” is, there must be a seder (order). Yes, but not therefore one says before the first their language, after a short one with the second their language. Yes, after a short one, “v’higadeta l’vincha”. But it’s connected with the inyan of arba’ah banim (four sons), corresponding to four sons. Now he says a new thing, “v’higadeta l’vincha”. Yes yes, certainly, this is connected.
The General Order of the Haggadah
His order wasn’t in an order, not made. I can tell you that generally, from within “avadim hayinu” (we were slaves), from “different opinions of the Rabbis,” until the end of… until “at first,” is essentially a continuation from… It learns the sugya of yetzias Mitzrayim. Yes, this is about the obligation of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim. All kinds of matters about the obligation. How long it is, for whom it is, what the source, and the like. It’s all more or less… That is, the inyan of “the verse teaches you that you are not permitted to open,” does this also, because the first part of the Haggadah is only a sugya, it has different statements about the sugya of yetzias Mitzrayim.
Okay. Understand what I’m saying? Yes. “V’higadeta l’vincha”. Simply, yes. I wrote in my Haggadah, I made an organized Haggadah. It says “mitzvas haggadah” (the commandment of the Haggadah). Very good. “Mitzvas haggadah” is very good. It’s good, something like an escape from war. It went until here, until this, until “v’higadeta l’vincha”. It went. Simple and clear things.
Discussion: Why “Yachol MeRosh Chodesh”?
Yes. “V’higadeta l’vincha”, “yachol merosh chodesh”. Yes. Why “yachol merosh chodesh”? I don’t know. Why should the assumption be this? Because it says “ba’avur zeh”, one must bring the whole verse. On this I understand. Ah, here one must bring the whole verse. One must bring the whole verse. One doesn’t understand clearly.
Speaker 1: Why should we show with the service on Rosh Chodesh so? It has something to do with the month. I would have thought that one can already accept on the month.
Speaker 2: Ah, is the verse in Parshas Bo, right? Before the whole inyan of yetzias Mitzrayim.
Hey, nu, talmud lomar (the verse teaches)? Talmud lomar “bayom hahu” (on that day), I only said on that day. Ah, talmud lomar “ba’avur zeh”. “Zeh” (this) only goes up on something specific. On what does it go up? On the “zeh,” the matzah and maror, yes?
Discussion: Why Does He Say “Zeh” Means Matzah and Maror?
Why does he say “zeh” means matzah and maror? What is the teaching? I don’t know. This is a good question.
We’ve already learned earlier about this. The simple answer is because “zeh” (this) implies something that can be pointed to, something tangible. Very good. I think that’s the best answer one can find.
Ah, but does it say in the verse “maror zeh”? No. “Matzah zo”? No. The language is “ba’avur zeh”. The language is “ba’avur zeh”. Aha. The verse is telling you that you will perform the mitzvos of Yom Tov, when it will be “v’hayah ki yishalcha bincha” (and it shall be when your son asks you). Okay, we can hear that “ba’avur zeh” is part of the story. When you’re in the middle of having mitzvos now, and your son asks you, you tell him that the story of the Exodus from Egypt happened so that we should have the mitzvos of the Exodus from Egypt. And we should do them, and we should tell this the whole year, and we will cook this. “Ba’avur zeh asah Hashem li” (for the sake of this, Hashem did for me), I made a preparation so that I could perform such great mitzvos. Yes?
But I don’t know what the translation is. You say that’s the translation. What is the translation of “ba’avur zeh asah Hashem li b’tzeisi mi’Mitzrayim” (for the sake of this, Hashem did for me when I went out of Egypt)? No, that’s not the translation. “Ba’avur zeh” – I do, because Hashem did for me. That’s the simple translation, isn’t it? Simple translation, it’s a verse, you just need to place it a bit earlier. That’s what I think is the absolutely simple translation.
Summary: What We Know So Far About the Mitzvah of Storytelling
In summary, what do we know until now? Wow! Yes, children. All the way, no, the whole thing. In summary, no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute. We know the whole thing, we must tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt at night, b’rov am hadras melech (in the multitude of people is the king’s glory), ah, to the children, and so forth. Yes, apparently the whole thing that must be said for Mah Nishtanah, because we must say “matchilah ovdei avodah zarah” (originally our forefathers were idol worshippers). The whole thing of “Arami oved avi” (An Aramean tried to destroy my father), but the question arises, because “matchilah” goes back to idol worship.
We ask a question, Mah Nishtanah, we answer “avadim hayinu” (we were slaves), or “matchilah”. The whole piece in the middle was drawn in, just as Moshe drew himself into the sugya. When and when… that’s what I’m afraid of, because it doesn’t make sense. A large seder has passed that should stand there for so much. But when does the obligation on the father first stand to tell? Yes. Also, what happens if he has children who are in trouble? He says here, you need to find a way to talk to them. There are two things, either he says you can do what you can do, if you have a crazy child, you’re exempt, you’re exempt from educating him. That does look like what Rabbi Eli comes up with, some preparation, it does look like I’m going into the Midrash Haggadah, but I think the next piece, excuse me but I’ll tell you further about the answer, I didn’t just chop logic, I wanted to tell you. There’s an answer that all the grandfathers were righteous, and he was for a little time.
But why did I start – the whole thing goes back to why do we eat matzah now? Why didn’t they let it rise? You’ll still understand the whole story with challah. No, you’ve already learned that, I just want to tell you.
Matchilah Ovdei Avodah Zarah Hayu Avoseinu — V’achshav Keirvanu HaMakom La’avodaso
Matchilah Ovdei Avodah Zarah — Two Answers to the Question of Telling the Exodus Story
But I think the next piece, matchilah ovdei avodah zarah (originally idol worshippers), we continue saying to the wicked son, I already told you we’ve completed it, I already told you you’re not the first wicked one, all our grandfathers were wicked, you’re a little righteous one, give it a bit of time.
But the plain meaning of “matchilah” goes back to why do we eat matzah now? Why weren’t we dipped in – why do we eat? What is it? “Arami oved avi”? No, no one understands “Arami oved avi”. Someone said “matchilah”. Rabbi Shmuel, it’s today.
So, “Arami oved avi” can be both, they learned earlier, I don’t know, but in any case that’s another thing. So, “Arami oved avi” we’ve already said one answer, now we can say another answer more or less, which is matchilah ovdei avodah zarah hayu avoseinu (originally our forefathers were idol worshippers).
The Language “V’achshav” — A Continuation from Then Until Now
Matchilah ovdei avodah zarah hayu avoseinu, v’achshav (originally our forefathers were idol worshippers, and now), “v’achshav” is an interesting language, we’re talking about several thousand years later. V’achshav, apparently, apparently. No, he doesn’t mean v’achshav when the author wrote this statement, it’s also several thousand years after that. “V’achar kach” (and afterwards) should have been said, yes. But “v’achshav” we still hold to keirvanu HaMakom la’avodaso (the Omnipresent brought us close to His service). But “v’achshav” is now all one, one long continuation from then, that we Jews are the seed of the righteous.
As that one says, we are the modern Jews, we are matchilah ovdei avodah zarah hayu avoseinu (originally our forefathers were idol worshippers). I know, a Jew must always be “v’achshav”. V’achshav, as it says, vayomer Yehoshua el kol ha’am (and Yehoshua said to all the people), we bring a whole long sermon from Yehoshua there, basically.
Discussion: What Does “Kofer Ba’ikar” Mean — The Concept of “Ikar”
I want to go back a minute, what does the word “bichvodo u’v’atzmo” (in his honor and essence) mean? Simply, what does the word “ikar” (fundamental principle) mean? Because the Midrash Haggadah is occupied with the concept of ikrei emunah (fundamental principles of faith), the thirteen principles. “Kofer ba’ikar” (denier of the fundamental) is indeed here. “Kofer ba’ikar” is indeed here. How? I don’t know. How is he a “kofer ba’ikar”? One can argue. The Gemara says that “Acher” was a “kofer ba’ikar”.
Yes, I think… what is the “ikar”? Whatever the “ikar” is, he’s entirely a “kofer ba’ikar”. I think that “ikar” means… the thirteen principles are correct things, but I think that “kofer ba’ikar” always means the Almighty, not by us principles of faith. The main thing. The main thing means, as it were.
Also the Rishonim were “kofer ba’ikar”.
Why Is the Wicked Son a Kofer Ba’ikar?
What’s the plain meaning? Why should we say that he’s a “kofer ba’ikar”? Why does he say that he’s a “kofer ba’ikar”? The Almighty commanded us to mean only the Jews. I believe in the Almighty, the Almighty doesn’t love me at all. No, he has a problem with the Almighty. He doesn’t have a problem with the Jews.
You’re asking a good question. I want to say that the whole “mah ha’avodah hazos lachem” (what is this service to you) — somehow he’s distanced from them, he’s not invited to the service.
It seems that the service, “avodah” means service. Ah, no, no, no, no, one minute, one minute. Let’s say first simply. I think that first of all, in any case. First of all, I don’t know, maybe this is also another strong… ah, a denier you, also me a denier. “Kofer ba’ikar”, not just. No, but it could be that the point is that he says “mah ha’avodah hazos lachem”. “Avodah” means service of Hashem. As it were, you don’t believe in the One being served. That’s how it was understood once. But it’s considered that the inference from “lachem” (to you) is not an inference. But in order “we servants of Hashem”, what does “we servants of Hashem” mean? We servants of Hashem.
The Haggadah understood that this is the intention. The Midrashim mean that first there was a wicked son who was a “kofer ba’ikar”, and afterwards they made the exposition. Not that first there was the exposition, and they introduced that there’s an exposition. They found a way how to say that the verse is already speaking of the known wicked son, the wicked son that we know. How? Do you understand what I’m saying? Every wicked son is a “kofer ba’ikar”? What is this, he’s not yet really a “kofer ba’ikar”? What is it, he’s only a righteous person who’s not a “kofer ba’ikar”? No, we’re not talking about him. We’re talking about a “kofer ba’ikar”. He’s not a simple one. He’s an apikores (heretic). I don’t know. Whoever is not a “kofer ba’ikar” is different. A different situation, I think. That’s what I would think.
A “kofer ba’ikar” is a “kofer ba’ikar”. But “ikar” always means, I did a search now, “ikar” always means the Master of the Universe.
Discussion: The Wicked Son Who Comes to the Seder — “Ilu Hayah Sham Lo Hayah Nigal”
I just want to tell you, I can only tell you the story of the Exodus from Egypt, what you say to your rabbi is a very lively story. I’m already in the middle of running away, I’m going to stay on Chol HaMoed Pesach. It’s like a “kofer ba’ikar” who comes in. Yes, the rabbi comes in and he sees that there’s a whole lot of food being prepared. He’s not going to stay, and he’s not going to stay, he’s going to turn around, he’s going to tell me all the other things again.
You should tell me, but why does he say go away in language? He says, the Almighty took me out of Egypt, didn’t include you in the story of the Exodus from Egypt. What did he sin with what he says to him? No, I’ll tell you the plain meaning. He says, I’ll tell you the plain meaning. He says, “hak’heh es shinav” (blunt his teeth). What are you doing out of here? You don’t hold by this. But he gives him a knock. Why do you escort him out of here? Because you were a head who was taken out of Egypt, you loser, and not you, and go further.
Okay, that’s a good joke. But the plain meaning is not so. The plain meaning is that Jews are disturbed by the fact that there are people who are deniers, and the Midrash found a way how to say that it’s written so in the language. And I hold that one cannot punish a wicked son who is destined to be wicked. It doesn’t mean a wicked son who comes to the seder. That’s a nice story that you told me. A wicked son who doesn’t come to the seder is not a wicked son. There are Jews who say, “What do I need the whole Haggadah for?” and they don’t come.
“Ilu hayah sham lo hayah nigal” (if he had been there he would not have been redeemed), that’s also not true, because if he had been there he wouldn’t have been a denier. He would have turned to the Almighty, and he would have seen the miracles, and he would have become an ex-denier. There’s a language, it’s a language with a foundation. “Ilu hayah sham lo hayah nigal”, he would have been happy that you’re a Jew. Well, now he’s going to go, he’s not a Jew.
The Plain Meaning of “Ilu Hayah Sham Lo Hayah Nigal”
I just want to say that we’re not talking about that. I think we don’t need to go so deep. I really need to have reality. What… let me remember. What is the simple plain meaning of the Haggadah? What is the simple plain meaning? That throughout the generations people forget, and people ask, “v’hayah ki yomru aleichem b’neichem mah ha’avodah hazos lachem” (and it shall be when your children say to you, what is this service to you). The plain meaning is, the Midrash saw that there’s Pesach Sheni, and they gave from terumot. What do you want? It was three thousand years ago in Egypt. There really are such people who say so. What does it think is a good thing, because if it says this in the language of children, it says “li v’lo lo” (to me and not to him), that’s from here, yes, you would also have been in Egypt. It’s not a question, the “children” when it says “children”, we need to take out “children” here doesn’t mean literal what is a Jew. With the previous vision of “these are our children, our children, our children”, if we hadn’t been redeemed then, I would also have suffered in Egypt now. Maybe he’s a Jew, and maybe he’s not on a lower Jew. “Ilu hayah sham lo hayah nigal” (if he had been there he would not have been redeemed), what are you, a fool? Does it mean me? It reads with me.
It means to say like… that the problem we have, no, I want to say it like this, because certainly if he had been there he would have been, but the problem we have is it’s so long ago, it’s not relevant. If you had been there you wouldn’t… the problem of us are simply the people who still remember what it was, you’ve forgotten. Okay.
Something like that, I don’t know, why shouldn’t he be redeemed? Because he’s wicked? What’s bad that a wicked person shouldn’t be redeemed? Could be. Already when still redeemed, no? That’s what I would think, I don’t know, there could be another plain meaning also on this strong point.
Innovation: The Four Sons Are Not Literally Four Children at the Table
I want simply… I think an innovation that I learned this year, which I never knew until now, that all these teachings are not like we’re always taught that it’s a father with four children sitting. Here it’s simply four types of mitzvos, there’s a mitzvah for the wise, there’s a mitzvah for the wicked. Not four types… yes, but it speaks of the situation of “son”, not necessarily “son”, just as the Rambam says “teach his son”, it means teaching Jews Torah. But there’s a concept of precedence and so forth, the same thing here, certainly there’s a mitzvah for a father to teach his son, but like the people who say this parable that… there’s indeed something of an order of precedence, that the wise son comes before the wicked son, and the wicked son comes before the simple son. But in general, that a father is… one doesn’t have to answer to say that there’s a concept to go to the father on Pesach, I know what it says “son”… not that, the Rambam didn’t find such a law for me. There’s a mitzvah to tell, Rabbi Akiva with the colleagues sat down, it’s not… it says that it’s a mitzvah, just as it’s a mitzvah to learn with the father, because the father has something of precedence, some sense that…
Yes, it’s exactly a grant, but it’s not really… it says, it’s not the plain meaning that there’s like a… an agent of obligation or something like that, so… that’s how one sees something let… I really asked my father, it’s perfect. Ah, that certainly fulfills the mitzvah of telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt, and the Torah that I say that “son” doesn’t mean “son”, I have my children, they’re already fathers. Baruch Hashem, little wise ones in our times. You have the… or I tell you, we’ll go over it a few more times. Okay.
The Verse from Yehoshua: “B’ever HaNahar Yashvu Avoseichem Me’olam”
Matchilah ovdei avodah zarah hayu avoseinu, v’achshav (originally our forefathers were idol worshippers, and now), as you say, v’achar kach keirvanu HaMakom la’avodaso (and afterwards the Omnipresent brought us close to His service).
It’s not interesting actually. HaMakom Baruch Hu. He started with “Baruch HaMakom”. It’s simple, with the “Baruch HaMakom”. He started with “Baruch HaMakom”, and he says “HaMakom Baruch Hu keirvanu la’avodaso”. And we see in Chazal a lot they should use “HaMakom”.
“HaMakom” is the language of Chazal, “Baruch Hu u’varuch shemo” (Blessed is He and blessed is His name). Yes. No, the truth is, many times they say “Rachmana”, or… “Rachmana” is in the Bavli, that’s in the Gemara. But in the earlier Baraisos, Midrashei Chachamim, it’s “HaMakom”. “HaKadosh Baruch Hu”, or “HaMakom”.
It’s certainly a normal version in Chazal. “She’korin oso HaMakom” (that they call Him HaMakom) is not a strange thing that it should stand here. Yes, yes, yes. “Mekomo shel olam” (the place of the world) stands in Chazal itself. That’s the plain meaning, why do they call Him “HaMakom”? Because He is the place of the world. They say it themselves explaining their version. But it’s a version that they use. Exactly when, one really needs to become well-versed in that and know how it stands.
She’ne’emar vayomer Yehoshua el kol ha’am, ko amar Hashem Elokei Yisrael (as it says, and Yehoshua said to all the people, thus says Hashem, God of Israel). Are you learning that Yehoshua told this as part of the story of the Exodus from Egypt? Could be, we need to check. Correct, as it stands in the story of the Exodus from Egypt of Yehoshua? I put it in like this, yes. Did you learn it? Ko amar Hashem Elokei Yisrael (thus says Hashem, God of Israel). These are the verses that you say after you die, so that one can put in the verses.
“Me’olam” — What Does This Mean?
Ko amar Hashem Elokei Yisrael, b’ever hanahar yashvu avoseichem me’olam (thus says Hashem, God of Israel, beyond the river your forefathers dwelt from of old). In general, but you understand that it’s not a random thing that he says here. He’s saying some fundamentals that he held is important to teach. We must understand that this is an important story that must always be mentioned to the children. Certainly fundamentals.
Vayomer Yehoshua el kol ha’am, ko amar Hashem Elokei Yisrael, b’ever hanahar yashvu avoseichem me’olam. It says here “me’olam”, from a long time. From forever. The world is not eternal, right? It wasn’t always “ever hanahar”. It certainly wasn’t always, exactly. “Me’olam” means from once, yes. Terach avi Avraham va’avi Nachor (Terach the father of Avraham and the father of Nachor). Original. “Me’olam” can mean original. No. “Le’olam”, when you say “le’olam va’ed”, “le’olam va’ed” means forever. Essentially, original. Terach was the father of Avraham and the father of Nachor. Yes, Terach also had a wise son and a wicked son. “Vaya’avdu Elohim acherim” (and they served other gods), who? Terach with Nachor. But not Avraham. Avraham immediately… the Rambam says that Avraham…
The Rambam: Avraham Atzmo Min Ha’ovdim Hayah
Okay, the Rambam says… no, the Rambam says “Avraham atzmo min ha’ovdim hayah” (Avraham himself was among the worshippers). As an idol worshipper. According to the Rambam in Hilchos Avodah Zarah.
Discussion About “Tzei U’lemad” and “Baruch Shomer Havtachaso” in the Haggadah
Terach, Avraham, and Idol Worship
Speaker 1: Essentially, original, no? I just want to read the plain meaning.
Terach was the father of Avraham and the father of Nachor. Yes, Terach also had a wise son and a wicked son. Vaya’avdu Elohim acherim (and they served other gods). Who? Terach with Nachor. Not Avraham, Avraham is… the Rambam says that Avraham… no, the Rambam says that Avraham himself was an idol worshipper. According to the Rambam in Hilchos Avodah Zarah it says that he was an idol worshipper. If we want to bring a Rambam here, we need to bring that Rambam on this in Hilchos Avodah Zarah.
Avraham Ever HaNahar
In any case, no shortcuts, the holy tzaddikim say that Avraham was ever hanahar. Yes, and the normal people say, “He was my father.” An interesting interpretation. It’s Avraham ever hanahar. Also such an interpretation. Yes, ever hanahar.
The Almighty as “Makom” — He Runs a Place
Anyway, it’s correct here that He is called here a makom baruch, because the Almighty runs a place here, yes? He placed them first in ever hanahar, and He takes them to another place here in the verses. Vayeilchu shneihem b’chol eretz Canaan. They were immediately taken and brought to Eretz Yisrael. The Almighty comes out here very strongly as one who runs the place, the one of the makom.
Vayeilchu shneihem b’chol eretz Canaan v’arbeh et zaro. Zaro shel Avraham, yes. You see that the others who went after elohim acherim, the elohim acherim didn’t make them have many children. But the Almighty who took Avraham… It’s a bit interesting, because Avraham took the Almighty, not so much the other way. Avraham perceived the Almighty. Not that the Almighty took him. It doesn’t say, you know that one verse says that Avraham perceived the Almighty? The Rambam says so. Now we’re speaking with verses.
And he doesn’t speak here that the “avicha v’akrivacha” doesn’t mean that he became a believer here. It’s an external thing that the Almighty commanded him, “Lech lecha me’artzecha,” and he came, “vayeilchu shneihem b’chol eretz Canaan v’arbeh et zaro.” I gave a gift to Yitzchak. Vayitein l’Yitzchak et Yaakov v’et Eisav. It’s interesting, so Yitzchak… About Avraham he tells that he had… Who was the instigator for Avraham? It was Avraham and Nachor. Afterwards, after Yaakov it’s again Yaakov and Eisav. Okay, it was Eisav. Eisav was the instigator, the wicked Eisav. V’Yaakov u’vanav yardu Mitzrayim. What’s the problem? I mean, it looks like Nachor is out, later Yaakov and Eisav, Eisav is out. We remain, we want to focus on those who are tzaddikim. Yaakov u’vanav yardu Mitzrayim.
“Baruch Shomer Havtachato L’Yisrael” — Textual Variations
Okay, he says further, baruch shomer havtachato l’Yisrael amo. In our Haggadah it doesn’t say amo. In yours does it say amo? I’m going to check. Baruch shomer havtachato l’Yisrael amo, baruch Hu. She’HaKadosh Baruch Hu mechashev et haketz. In our Haggadah it says “chishev et haketz.” He’s still calculating, who knows… He’s calculating now the new ketz.
Let’s see what it says here: “V’hi she’amdah la’avoteinu v’lanu, shelo echad bilvad amad aleinu lechaloteinu, ela sheb’chol dor vador omdim aleinu lechaloteinu, v’HaKadosh Baruch Hu matzileinu miyadam.”
“V’hi She’amdah” — What is “V’hi”?
And “v’hi” – the promise – is “shelo echad bilvad amad aleinu lechaloteinu.” “V’hi” with a feminine language. Now, why do we need to have the promise? Yes. It says “v’hi” with a hei. What is the hei? And then it goes into where it says “v’hi” with a yud and with a vav. Where do you see that? “V’hu she’amdah.” Where does it say that? By me it says altogether “v’hi” without a vav.
It could be the promise that was said to Avraham, and therefore “matzileinu miyadam.” It’s a great chiddush that it doesn’t say in the promise anything about “b’chol dor vador.” Did you notice? Interesting, no? Do you understand my question? Therefore, why does it occur to him to say that there is every generation? What is the promise to Avraham?
The Source of “B’chol Dor Vador”
What is the source? It’s a midrash, basically. But one can understand, because what’s the simple meaning that the whole thing is said to Avraham? Because Avraham, the Almighty loves Avraham, and the Almighty says to Avraham, “You should know, I’m going to take care of your children.” Because regarding that story, the Almighty is a Litvak, “Ah, I didn’t take for other things.” I said to Avraham, “I love you, I’m going to help your grandchildren.” Okay. It’s a chiddush, no? It’s a chiddush.
But it also looks like “shelo echad bilvad amad aleinu lechaloteinu, ela sheb’chol dor vador” – it’s clear that it’s all until Mashiach. Starting with Egypt, now there’s a second, which is a cycle of more and more people, and the Almighty is the whole time busy with Avraham, and the whole time he has to redeem it. The promise hasn’t ended. Ah, presumably that’s what shomer havtachato means, he guards the promise in the long term, not once.
Discussion: Where Does the Promise About “B’chol Dor Vador” Appear?
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, but how does the promise appear? I simply know it says, “va’avadum v’inu otam” for a certain time, and in that time… So from where come all these ideas? Good question, no?
Speaker 1: It could be that the word is that the word lies in perhaps, in the word she’HaKadosh Baruch Hu mechashev et haketz. The Almighty, every trouble has some ketz, and the Almighty always calculates the ketz. This isn’t to Avraham, but it’s the Almighty who always when there are troubles… But how is he shomer havtachato here? The promise is after all… Perhaps, ah, I’ll tell you a simple interpretation. It doesn’t say which land. It doesn’t say with Egypt. Which eretz lo lahem it will be, there is a promise that HaKadosh Baruch Hu will save. Do you catch? It’s a good interpretation, no?
Speaker 2: No, because a few things it does say, “be’erev le’itot erev Yaakov vered Mitzraymah.” That’s another verse, tzaddik. In Yeshayahu. Past tense, right? So every time when it’s eretz lo lahem… Yes. It could be when the tzaddikim wanted to make sure that Eretz Yisrael is an eretz lo lahem, the Zionists have nothing to do with us, because they need to continue redeeming us.
Speaker 1: But this is interesting, and the words “shelo echad bilvad amad aleinu lechaloteinu” makes why the Almighty is still sustaining, because it started with Pharaoh. No, he means to say that it went on, it doesn’t say… The reason why a king comes later and torments the Jews is because they are in the diaspora, where everyone can grab them, and they are the persecuted nation. Everything started with Pharaoh. Why did he become so with Pharaoh? They were already victims under all kings. Why does the Almighty feel he needs a continuation? The Almighty takes complete responsibility for it. Why do you push the blame on Hitler because of Pharaoh? So, the Almighty is a messenger in the world. “Eleh chelkei elohim asher lo yad’u et Hashem v’et Pharaoh.” It’s a vicious cycle. A person who was grabbed in kindergarten, I don’t know what. He grabs to Pharaoh, and the Jews were… and therefore it’s always the same wickedness. After Pharaoh came other wicked ones who continue Pharaoh, and the Almighty is however the same Creator. “Borei shamayim va’aretz” is on the Chassidim. Yes, and we want to attribute everything to the promise. The Almighty isn’t guilty with the promise.
The “Vicious Cycle” of Persecutions and the Almighty’s Responsibility
Seemingly, if not for Pharaoh, Avraham Avinu would have bought a bunch of real estate in the Middle East, and we would have had a land, and it would have been a settled thing. Because of Pharaoh we are wandering in a land that goes and comes in exile.
I don’t know, they made a midrash. The Almighty thought he could go with the simple meaning of Egypt. No, no, the midrash says that it goes today too, and it’s now a place. Do you understand? The Almighty is shomer Torah. Just as we must keep the Torah, we must have a midrash that says that I know what he must also. It’s two-sided. All Torah that we do must have had a midrash. This is the same thing. We must have a midrash that the Almighty must save us, and he will save us.
Yetziat Mitzrayim at Night — A Deeper Meaning
Why was it so important to say that Yetziat Mitzrayim is obligated at night? Because here is the long night of exile, and we want to obligate that the Almighty must also remember Yetziat Mitzrayim in the long night, the whole night.
It’s already a fear. This is actually a truth, it’s a chiddush, and one must understand how to say this. Okay.