הלכות חמץ ומצה פרק ז

Laws of Chametz and Matzah Chapter 7 – The Mitzvah of Recounting the Exodus from Egypt

Introduction: The Mitzvah of Recounting the Exodus from Egypt versus Remembering the Exodus from Egypt

The Rambam’s Mitzvah #8 in the Introduction

Speaker 1:

We are going to learn Laws of Chametz and Matzah Chapter 7.

And it goes like this, we have already learned the laws of not eating chametz, that we learned in chapters 1 through 5. Chapter 6 we already learned the mitzvah of eating matzah, and chapter 7 we are going to learn another mitzvah that the Rambam said is a mitzvah.

Which mitzvah is this? The eighth mitzvah that the Rambam counted in the introduction to the laws, and this is… he said “there are thirteen mitzvot… eight mitzvot,” and the last one that he enumerated is “lesaper biyetziat mitzrayim be’oto halailah” (to recount the Exodus from Egypt on that night). He says “be’oto halailah,” “that known night.” He doesn’t say “zecher” (remembrance).

And now he’s going to tell us the laws of this mitzvah. Okay.

The Difference Between Zecher Yetziat Mitzrayim and Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim

What does the Haggadah tell us, that one must recount the Exodus from Egypt is a mitzvah every day? No, only at night. “Lesaper baleilot” (to recount at nights). No, it’s not like that. There is a difference between zecher yetziat mitzrayim (remembering the Exodus) and sippur yetziat mitzrayim (recounting the Exodus). So there were righteous people who said, and other righteous people say differently.

In any case, the Rambam did not rule that there is a mitzvah of zecher yetziat mitzrayim for the whole year at all. No, he doesn’t say that. We say Kriat Shema, and in Kriat Shema one mentions yetziat mitzrayim, but it’s a part of the mitzvah of Kriat Shema, not specifically. He doesn’t say that it’s a separate mitzvah.

The Rambam in the Laws of Kriat Shema

Look in the Laws of Sefer Ahavah, do you have it? Look in Sefer Ahavah, in the Laws of… let’s see… Laws of… ah, good. There is the text there, right? In Sefer Ahavah, Laws of… no, no, no, open it. In the Laws of Kriat Shema there is… hello? I thought one advantage of printed books over the books is that printed books don’t have “stuck loading.” It’s not loading, it can sometimes take a while until it loads.

No, open it. Yes, it’s not important.

Speaker 2:

Yes, can I call you after three? Buy a… make an automatic message every day. Nu nu. Can I call you after three?

Speaker 1:

Okay. No, talking about this will take longer than we stop and say “buy after three.” No, it’s not true, it interrupts the whole seder hayom (order of the day).

In the Laws of… where is Kriat Shema? Sorry, I’m putting it away. Laws of Kriat Shema, the first law. Laws of Kriat Shema there is… which mitzvah is there? One mitzvah: likrot kriat shema pa’amayim bayom (to recite Kriat Shema twice a day). That’s all.

In the law it says exactly that one reads Kriat Shema. Do you have… why? In law 3 it says why one reads the three portions, and also why one reads tzitzit at night, kedei sheyehei adam mazkir yetziat mitzrayim bayom uvalailah (so that a person should mention the Exodus from Egypt by day and by night), as it says in the verse that you bring from the Haggadah, which is in the Mishnah in Berachot.

So what kind of mitzvah is this? This is not a mitzvah from the 613 mitzvot. This is not a mitzvah. Here the Rambam distinguished that mitzvah doesn’t mean an actual mitzvah.

Zecher Yetziat Mitzrayim in Kiddush and Birkat Hamazon

Why does one say in Kiddush that it should be zecher liyetziat mitzrayim (a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt)? It’s a text of Kiddush. In Kiddush comes yetziat mitzrayim. It’s not a mitzvah to say yetziat mitzrayim. It’s a mitzvah lechatchilah (ideally), yes, it’s not… and also in Birkat Hamazon. In both it’s a concept, such a text, when one thanks the Almighty one thanks for yetziat mitzrayim. It’s not a specific mitzvah.

No, exactly. And it appears from this Rambam that even… it appears from this Rambam that even here the Rambam understood this way. They say already on the page, lema’an tizkor (so that you shall remember), Tosafot in zachor, in the Sefer Hamaftei’ach. It appears that the Rambam understood, as you said simply, that this is not really a mitzvah.

Eh, it says mitzvah? The Rambam usually when it says mitzvah he means an actual mitzvah, but not here. It’s like the order of Kriat Shema to say yetziat mitzrayim. The Rambam doesn’t have such a mitzvah. When you look here, he has in limnyan hamitzvot… very many commentators who talk about this. But in short, he didn’t mention it.

Discussion: “Kol Shelo Amar” – A Mitzvah or a Law in the Text?

Speaker 2:

But why does it say there “kol shelo amar” (whoever did not say)? What does it say there “beraita detorah”? Why does it say there “of matzri”? This is Laws of Netilat Yadayim, a blessing. If one is not yotzei yedei chovah (fulfilling the obligation), one is meshaneh matbei’a shetav’u chachamim (changing the formula that the Sages established), not because this is the main mitzvah or what?

Speaker 1:

I understand what you’re saying, this is a distinction that you’re talking about.

The Mitzvah of “Vehigadeta Levinkha”

So, in any case, when there is indeed a mitzvah, another mitzvah that the Rambam made, where there is a mitzvah of sippur yetziat mitzrayim, you can call it. The mitzvah of “vehigadeta levinkha” (and you shall tell your son).

Yes, the difference between sippur, that sippur means the details of the miracles and wonders, and now… all these distinctions are only according to the one who has… it’s debated, because this is only true according to the one who says that there is such a mitzvah of zechirat yetziat mitzrayim, but the Rambam doesn’t have such a mitzvah. Therefore, the question doesn’t apply.

The Ramban and Yetziat Mitzrayim

There is the Ramban, I know, he talks a lot about yetziat mitzrayim, and he says that yetziat mitzrayim is the foundation of the entire faith, and he derives it. But from the perspective of… this is not such a mitzvah. We’re not talking now about mitzvot, we’re talking… do you want to look here? There is in short what the Sages say about the question why the Rambam didn’t hold that there is a mitzvah of zechirat yetziat mitzrayim. I said what I think, that there is in general a doubt, so he holds, that someone else thinks, he didn’t mention what I mean.

Discussion: The Mishnah of Ben Zoma

I said that apparently it’s the principle of Ben Zoma, “lema’an tizkor et yom tzeitcha me’eretz mitzrayim” (so that you shall remember the day of your going out from the land of Egypt), Ben Zoma… the mitzvah is the mitzvah. The verse says “ad shedarash ben zoma” (until Ben Zoma expounded). One sees that the Sages admit that one doesn’t say it at night, it’s only Ben Zoma who holds that yes.

No, there are those who say that one can hear perhaps why the Sages speak of laws that should be for the days of Mashiach. They don’t mean to rule a law for the days of Mashiach, they mean perhaps they’re not talking about a mitzvah, they say that it’s a zecher. They say that it means that Pesach one doesn’t need to say.

If you would say that it’s a mitzvah, to rule such a mitzvah a ruling for the days of Mashiach, or… not at night, but during the day. The question is only at night. During the day according to everyone, everyone admits. The question is whether it’s indeed a mitzvah. The Rambam doesn’t appear to have held this either. Other people say indeed, the Rambam’s approach was the whole thing at night.

Summary: Why the Rambam Did Not Hold There Is a Mitzvah of Zechirat Yetziat Mitzrayim

I thought that there are several things in this. Just one, it doesn’t appear that the Rambam didn’t hold the entire mitzvah, because he has no reason to say so. The Rambam makes such a big distinction between things, whether it’s a mitzvah or not.

Perhaps because the language of mitzvah doesn’t appear anywhere. Other people talk, the Rambam didn’t want to hold the Gemara somewhere mitzvah or something like that. I say that even if they say to do something, that’s still not a mitzvah. The Sages argue about the interpretation of “lema’an tizkor,” it’s not necessarily that the “lema’an tizkor” is a mitzvah. There one sees clearly that yes, the question is only whether…

I say that the Rambam can learn those Mishnayot, that they don’t say the word mitzvah. I wanted to say that the Rambam holds that it’s a law in the Laws of Kriat Shema, it’s not… it’s a detail in the Laws of Kriat Shema. It’s to say that it’s a concept in the Laws of Birkat Hamazon, there are laws in places where… it’s not a mitzvah to mention.

What does the Gemara say? Kol shelo amar… it doesn’t say that, it doesn’t say that one must be yotzei a mitzvah of zecher liyetziat mitzrayim. It doesn’t come in. It doesn’t say there. I learn that it’s a part of the prayer, that one mentions with kindnesses even what happened, what comes in here to understand? It doesn’t say that it’s a mitzvah of zechirat yetziat mitzrayim. Perhaps it’s a concept, but I’m talking now about halachah, it’s not relevant. It also says that one must make Birkat HaTorah, what does that have to do with it? Is it some mitzvah of remembrance? It has nothing to do with it. I mean that it’s a… okay, let’s move on.

Law 1: A Positive Torah Commandment to Recount

“Mitzvat aseh shel Torah lesaper benisim venifla’ot shena’asu la’avoteinu bemitzrayim beleil chamishah asar benisan, shene’emar ‘zachor et hayom hazeh asher yetzatem mimitzrayim’ kemo shene’emar ‘zachor et yom hashabbat lekadsho'”

“Mitzvat aseh shel Torah” (a positive Torah commandment). Now we’re learning about that night. What the Rambam did hold is a mitzvah, and he found midrashim that say this, is not proof that this is the reason why the Rambam wants to say here the words “mitzvat aseh shel Torah.” Perhaps the Rambam learns that that Mishnah is a mitzvah, but it’s not a Torah mitzvah, it’s an asmachta (a support), but it’s a rabbinic mitzvah, and that’s the… yes, but he doesn’t mean the enactment, he didn’t think of that, it didn’t occur to him. But not always when he says the words “shel Torah” does it mean simple… generally yes, but it doesn’t mean every time it says there. The Rambam always remembered everything.

The Language of the Rambam

“Mitzvat aseh shel Torah lesaper benisim venifla’ot shena’asu la’avoteinu bemitzrayim beleil chamishah asar benisan”. The “beleil chamishah asar benisan” (on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan) refers to when the mitzvah is, not when the miracles happened. It’s “lesaper beleil chamishah asar benisan” (to recount on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan). Yes, yes, he’s going to make it clearer. No, no, he says clearly “lesaper beleil chamishah asar benisan.” Yes, yes, no one ever thought otherwise. I’m saying, but the language is a bit complex.

The Proof from “Zachor Et Yom HaShabbat”

“Shene’emar ‘zachor et hayom hazeh asher yetzatem mimitzrayim’, kemo shene’emar ‘zachor et yom hashabbat lekadsho'”. Ah, he brings a proof, this is apparently a proof that it’s a mitzvah of speech. Ah, that’s the point. What one can say that “zachor” can mean thought. I saw in “Zecher Yetziat Mitzrayim” by Rabbi Shlomo Kotzer, and there he told me that “zachor” is with speech, Kiddush, and “shamor” is thought.

They can mean nothing. They can mean to do Pesach, remember to do Pesach, or something like that.

I told you, the simple meaning of “zachor et yom hashabbat” doesn’t mean to say or think anything. It just means to make Shabbat.

Law 1 (Continued) – The Source of the Mitzvah of Recounting the Exodus on the Night of the 15th of Nisan

The Rambam’s Language and the Two Verses

Speaker 1: Not when the miracles happened on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan.

Speaker 2: Okay, that’s what he means.

Speaker 1: No, no, he says this language. Lesaper beleil chamishah asar benisan.

Speaker 2: Yes, yes, no one thought otherwise.

The First Verse: “Zachor Et Hayom Hazeh” – Source of the Essential Mitzvah

Speaker 1: Shene’emar, I’m saying but the language is a bit complex. Shene’emar, “vezacharta et hayom hazeh asher yetzatem mimitzrayim”. Kemo shene’emar, “zachor et yom hashabbat lekadsho”.

“Vezacharta et hayom hazeh asher yetzatem mimitzrayim” etc., here he says “kodesh,” kemo shene’emar, he brings a proof, this is apparently a proof that it’s a mitzvah of speech. That’s the point. What you can say that “zachor” can mean thought. Kemo shene’emar, “zachor et yom hashabbat lekadsho”, and there we learned that “zachor” is with speech, Kiddush.

Discussion: What Can “Zachor” Mean?

Speaker 2: Why do you say thought? It can mean nothing, it can mean do Pesach. Remember to do Pesach, or something like that.

Speaker 1: So he said, the simple meaning of “zachor et yom hashabbat” doesn’t mean to say or think anything, it just means to make Shabbat. But there the Sages disagreed that it means…

Speaker 2: No, he didn’t say it means speech, he didn’t say that word.

Speaker 1: Until he says the answer that the meaning of “zachor” is not to remember, but…

Speaker 2: “Zachor” can mean mazkir (to mention), to remind, and it can mean to remember.

Speaker 1: Here it means to remind.

Speaker 2: Aha.

“Et Hayom Hazeh” – Not “Bayom Hazeh”

Speaker 1: Therefore, like by you, “vezacharta et hayom hazeh” means… it’s very funny, because “vezacharta et hayom”, “vezacharta et hayom hazeh”, that you should remember that day when you went out from Egypt, very good. Not “bayom hazeh.” “Bayom hazeh” one sees physically that it’s that day. Okay.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: It could be that “beleil chamishah asar benisan” does indeed refer to “vezacharta et hayom hazeh”, remember the great day.

Speaker 2: Yes, but that’s not what the Rambam means, because look further you’ll see.

The Second Verse: “Ba’avur Zeh” – Source of the Time

Speaker 1: And once, and once on the fifteenth, he says, uminin shemitzvah beleil chamishah asar? Talmud lomar, “ba’avur zeh”, “ba’avur zeh” lo amarti ela bisha’ah sheyesh matzah umaror munachim lefanecha (I only said this at the time when matzah and maror are placed before you).

Discussion: How Does the Exposition of “Ba’avur Zeh” Work?

Speaker 2: What’s the meaning?

Speaker 1: Because we see that the mitzvah is at night.

Speaker 2: No, read, read the verse.

Speaker 1: “Bayom hahu leimor” (on that day saying), when is that? And what does it say before?

Speaker 2: Sorry, just read the Rambam first. “Ba’avur zeh”, “ba’avur zeh asah Hashem li betzeiti mimitzrayim” (for the sake of this did Hashem do for me when I went out of Egypt). Why don’t you let him finish a sentence? You’re chopping him up in the middle of his sentence.

Speaker 1: When? Doesn’t it say in your Rambam the end of the sentence?

Speaker 2: “Ba’avur zeh” – the Sages expound on the word “ba’avur zeh”, “bisha’ah sheyesh matzah umaror munachim lefanecha”. How do they interpret this into the verse? “Vehayah ki yishalcha bincha machar leimor mah zot ve’amarta eilav bechozeq yad hotzi’anu Hashem mimitzrayim mibeit avadim” (And it shall be when your son asks you tomorrow saying what is this and you shall say to him with a strong hand Hashem brought us out from Egypt from the house of bondage). “Ba’avur zeh” – bisha’ah sheyesh matzah umaror munachim lefanecha. This is only Pesach, then is the mitzvah of sippur yetziat mitzrayim.

Speaker 1: How is the simple meaning in the verse?

Speaker 2: I’m telling you, the verse doesn’t speak about Pesach at night. The Rambam only brings the verse, it’s enough to understand the exposition.

Speaker 1: But there one speaks of Moshe Rabbeinu telling to do the order, Pesach Mitzrayim, and there it says…

Speaker 2: No, that’s not “vehigadeta levinkha”.

Speaker 1: Okay, “that’s not gonna work”. The approach is “not gonna work”, “I don’t think”.

Speaker 2: No, not there does it even say “ba’avur zeh”.

Speaker 1: Okay, so the Rambam…

Clarification: Where Does the Verse Appear?

Speaker 2: “Vehayah ki yishalcha bincha machar leimor mah zot ve’amarta eilav bechozeq yad hotzi’anu Hashem mimitzrayim mibeit avadim. Vehayah le’ot al yadcha ultetotafot bein einecha ki bechozeq yad hotzi’anu Hashem mimitzrayim” (And it shall be for a sign on your hand and for frontlets between your eyes for with a strong hand Hashem brought us out from Egypt). This is tefillin, the mitzvah that I just said.

Speaker 1: Which mitzvot?

Speaker 2: “Mishchu ukchu lachem tzon” (Draw out and take for yourselves sheep), one should make a korban Pesach.

Speaker 1: Okay, but does it say to say matzah and maror?

Speaker 2: No, but there it says “vehigadeta levinkha”.

Speaker 1: But does it say to say matzah and maror?

Speaker 2: Does it say to say matzah and maror? And the whole portion… he means to say, what does one do when there’s no longer a Pesach? I mean to give a source reference to what… but your approach of trying to ask how the exposition works, from looking into the context of the verse, is indeed normal, because the verse has nothing to do with matzah and maror. True?

Speaker 1: So how is the exposition of “ba’avur zeh”?

Explanation: The Exposition of “Zeh” – Something One Points To

Speaker 2: Okay, so that’s not how it works. The exposition works that… let’s say there’s such an assumption that “ba’avur zeh”, “ba’avur zeh” means that one can point, like “zeh Eli ve’anveihu” (this is my God and I will glorify Him), “pointing with the finger”. “Ba’avur zeh” is the simple meaning that there’s something here that one points to. And “zeh,” in my time of the food, the Sages will say that it means the matzah and maror. I don’t know exactly how they make it mean matzah and maror, but I know for sure that the “ba’avur zeh” means to say some “zeh,” there’s something in front of you. When is there something in front of you? Pesach at night. That’s how the exposition works.

Speaker 1: But the exposition is that the child will ask you about Pesach, but it could be anything. That is, there should be something that the child should ask about. The conversation should begin with something the child asks.

Question: Why Do the Sages Say Matzah and Maror?

Speaker 2: So that’s indeed difficult, why do the Sages say? There’s an answer, because the verse doesn’t say anything about matzah and maror, and the whole portion doesn’t say anything about matzah. It says earlier perhaps, perhaps “matzot al merorim yochluhu” (they shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs), and much earlier. Not the same portion.

Speaker 1: Yes, it’s all in Bo. One is at the beginning of Parashat Bo, one is at the end of Parashat Bo. “Ushmartem et hadavar hazeh lechok lecha ulevaneha ad olam” (And you shall observe this thing as a statute for you and for your children forever), I guess that the “hadavar hazeh lechok lecha ulevaneha” refers to the entire mitzvah, not only to the… to what he says here.

Looking Into the Context of the Verses

Continuation of the Lecture on Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim (The Telling of the Exodus from Egypt)

Speaker 2: Once again, in the Torah, “ba’avur zeh asah Hashem li” (for the sake of this, Hashem did for me), where does it say this? There it says in Parshas Kadesh, right? There it says one should remember the day, “zachor es hayom hazeh” (remember this day), yes? Seemingly here is the verse that we brought a minute ago, there it says “zachor es hayom hazeh”. No, it’s not in Kadesh, it’s before Kadesh. “Vayikra’u vayochlu lechem”, “me’avdei Hashem”. “Kadesh li chol bechor peter kol rechem”, “vayomer Moshe el ha’am zachor es hayom hazeh”, yes? “Asher yetzasem miMitzrayim”, correct? This is still before Parshas Kadesh. Yes, “zachor es hayom hazeh”, tells us to remember. What does remember mean? We learned at Mincha, not to eat any chametz. When you will come to Eretz Yisrael, you will also eat matzah seven days, “matzos yochel”, not chametz. And then you shall say to your children, “ba’avur zeh asah Hashem li”. It says yes, why did you just confuse me? It says yes, “ba’avur zeh asah Hashem li b’tzeisi miMitzrayim”. He says, he says, to say “ba’avur zeh”, they interpreted, “ba’avur zeh” refers to the matzah mentioned above. I thought it refers to today, you just confused me.

The Parsha and the Context

Speaker 1: Maror it doesn’t say, it also doesn’t say… Seemingly, simply, it all refers to the whole thing, it’s all approximately in the same parsha. The avodah (service) has already been read, and then one says again, “mah ha’avodah hazos lachem?” (what is this service to you?). Earlier the son asks, a bit earlier… No, no, mishpachos (families) is already different verses. And here again, “v’higadeta l’vincha bayom hahu leimor ba’avur zeh”, this is a different verse. Here it says, “v’higadeta l’vincha… ba’avur zeh”, it doesn’t say what it refers to. It says “zachor es hayom hazeh”, don’t eat chametz, and say “ba’avur zeh asah Hashem li”. And this is the parsha, this is the same parsha that we learn there, “zachor es hayom hazeh”. But it doesn’t say maror, how you come in. Ah, okay, soon we’ll talk about maror. You’re asking a good question. But first, it doesn’t say maror, it also doesn’t say to eat matzah from a certain time. You have to put into your head the idea that the Chachamim said that here the first night you have a special mitzvah to eat matzah, this isn’t stated at all in the entire Torah. But… the verse says that one should eat matzah seven days, and one should say to the children “ba’avur zeh”. Let’s first learn without the problem of Pesach and chametz and maror. Let’s say they understood that the verse says “ba’avur zeh”, they understood that “zeh” is a difficult verse a bit, “ba’avur zeh”, how does one translate it. They understood that “ba’avur zeh” means “ba’avur”, I don’t know what “ba’avur” means, but something “zeh”, “zeh” certainly means the matzah mentioned above, no, the matzah is not mentioned above, the matzah placed on the table. Nu, when is this? “B’sha’ah sheyeish matzah u’maror munachim lefanecha” (at the time when matzah and maror are placed before you). This is the understanding of the Rishonim.

Investigation: Is Matzah and Maror Me’akev (Indispensable), or Is the Time the Cause?

Speaker 1: So is the matzah and maror the cause, or the time, the leil chamisha asar (the night of the fifteenth) is the cause? Ah, it seems that the Rambam understood that the time is the cause. It’s a mitzvah in the sefer “ba’avur zeh”, and from this one learns. Although it’s yes, we won’t see that there’s a mitzvah, there’s something, an inyan (matter), I don’t know if having the matzah and maror in front of you, I would have thought it’s not me’akev, because if someone doesn’t have any matzah and maror, he must make sippur yetzias Mitzrayim anyway, according to my humble opinion.

Digression: Pesach Sheni and Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim

Speaker 2: And one also must know, for example one isn’t relevant now, but for example if someone makes Pesach Sheni (the Second Pesach), when does he have the mitzvah of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim? Someone who is tamei (ritually impure), he can’t eat korban Pesach. One minute, it says in the verse… But the whole matzah and maror was connected to korban Pesach. You learned six verses that speak of Pesach, there isn’t one word about korban Pesach, not one word. This is zecher l’Pesach bazman hazeh (a remembrance of Pesach in our time). It doesn’t say anything about yetzias Mitzrayim, it’s about korban Pesach. It says about korban Pesach, it doesn’t say about Pesach, it’s about matzah and maror.

Speaker 1: It is said that the verse doesn’t say so, what are you saying? It makes sense, because the matzah and maror itself is a story, yes, the matzah comes to remind something, the maror comes to remind something, one understands that everything is one story, a display that reminds the story. But this isn’t what it says here, this is a nice Torah. Here he only learns that there’s a mitzvah at this time. To remember the miracles that happened, and from this there is one verse from which one learns that here they must remember.

Halacha 2-3: Length in Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim and Informing the Children

Halacha 2: “V’chol hama’arich bidvarim she’aru v’she’hayu harei zeh meshubach” (And whoever lengthens in the matters that occurred and that were, behold this is praiseworthy)

Speaker 1:

The matzah comes to remind something, the maror comes to remind something. Let it stand as a history, a display that reminds the story.

But this isn’t what it says here, this is a nice Torah. Here it only teaches us that there’s a mitzvah at this time to remember the miracles that happened, and from this there is one verse from which one learns that there’s a mitzvah to remember, which is similar to zachor es yom haShabbos, and another verse from which one learns the time of the remembrance, because this is the verse “ba’avur zeh”. Okay, that’s all.

Yes, you interrupted me, let’s go to the next halacha. Ah, “v’chol hamarbe harei zeh meshubach” – “v’chol hamarbe l’saper bitzias Mitzrayim” (and whoever increases to tell about the Exodus from Egypt). And this is a bit funny, because he says “l’saper” doesn’t mean exactly that, like the child doesn’t know, but it’s a clear halacha, an obligation of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim. And we know it, we learn it out, “v’higadeta l’vincha”.

The Rambam’s Language: “V’chol hama’arich” Instead of “V’chol hamarbe”

Speaker 1:

However, it says in the Haggadah, but the Rambam codes the Haggadah, and the Rambam writes “v’chol hama’arich”, he doesn’t say “v’chol hamarbe”, he says “v’chol hama’arich bidvarim”, “as if he lengthens and reclines”, “as if he lengthens in words”. “Shi’urei v’shi’urei”… a journey in shul.

It’s interesting the Rambam’s language, it comes out from the Rambam that if someone thinks “v’chol hamarbe” means he must come up with new Torah thoughts, make the plagues greater, add… The Rambam says no, it must be “shi’urei v’shi’urei”, “v’chol hama’arich” to say what happened. I personally learned it exactly the opposite, how can one lengthen about something that happened? I learn the simple meaning the opposite, how can one lengthen more than what happened? How do you know what happened? Don’t make up what happened.

The Rambam’s Emphasis on “Mah She’asah” (What He Did)

Speaker 1:

One must know, one must know the main mitzvah says the Rambam, the Rambam has something, one must know the Rambam wants “hadibur v’hatiferes hama’aseh v’hagedulah mah she’asah”, both times he says “mah she’asah”, you can’t make up things, “v’hitzilanu miyad Mitzrayim”. Okay, “v’hodah lo al kol hatov asher g’malanu”. There are more things there. It doesn’t just say the yetzias Mitzrayim, it says four things there.

I think the “yeridas hayam” (splitting of the sea) means to derive to give thanks. This is, there are more things there.

One can’t say that the length should be in the miracle itself, not in the words of praise and thanksgiving. So it seems here in the story, or in the… Not in the derivation, the other approach that says one lengthens in the laws of Pesach. There are other things that one can perhaps lengthen.

Simple Meaning: The Length Is in the Story of What Happened

Speaker 1:

When the Rambam says “shi’ur v’yoser”, he emphasizes that this is simple meaning. He emphasizes that according to him, the length speaks of the length in the story. That means, in other words, simple meaning seemingly means this: There’s a mitzvah to remember yetzias Mitzrayim. Now, what is the minimum measure? How much of the events must one tell? It’s enough that one says “yetzias Mitzrayim”. If someone wants to lengthen, he tells more details of the plagues, of whatever, understand? This is seemingly simple meaning.

Seemingly, one can say like “shi’ur v’yoser” like this, that when you say for example “dam” (blood), you can go in, each plague has within it thousands of small details how hard everything made it for the Egyptians. But one can perhaps even say that when it says that in each plague there were three plagues, it doesn’t mean they’re adding, they simply bring out that when you think well into it, yes, there was corona, what did all corona… A person who holds more, is that each plague brings with it more troubles. You’re not adding, you’re not just saying very wildly. You don’t want to say in reality, you don’t want to say that one should fantasize. About this the Rambam says the emphasis “shi’ur v’yoser”, you go into the details of each…

The simple meaning is that the mitzvah is to be yotzei (fulfill), that one says out of Egypt. In general to tell stories is already very praiseworthy, but it’s not the main mitzvah. Understand? This is simple meaning.

The length must be in the shi’ur v’yoser. Either yes or no. But I tell you, in the story of the pauper or in the story of the monkey, he wasn’t ma’arich in the shi’ur v’yoser. I tell you, because that has nothing to do with yetzias Mitzrayim. So about this I think describing the plagues, making the plagues greater, which he does indeed do. Yes, what is a metaphor. Whenever one speaks about the troubles of the… yes, but also that you’re going too far. I’m just telling you that the minimum, one doesn’t even have to tell what happened. One doesn’t even have to tell what happened, to be yotzei. One only has to say that one went out of Egypt. There were miracles and wonders, and so on.

Halacha 3: “Mitzvah l’hodi’a labanim va’afilu lo sha’alu” (It’s a mitzvah to inform the children even if they didn’t ask)

What Is the Measure of the Mitzvah?

Speaker 1:

What is the minimum? What is the measure? What is the measure? “V’higadeta l’vincha”, from the fact that it says “ki yish’alcha bincha”, could it be not if he asks you? The Torah teaches “v’higadeta l’vincha” even if he didn’t ask. So from here one learns that even if he didn’t ask. But the next thing of “afilu kulanu chachamim kulanu gedolim”, this he doesn’t say. Perhaps he understands it this way? Perhaps the simple meaning is this, when one says to a child, it’s not like one tells. One says, because a child was there was blood, yes, but you’re not explaining to him how a house looked where there was blood. One tells him that a chacham should also be marbeh in this, because a chacham already understands yes that blood and all kinds of troubles that come with it.

By the way, then you can speak the explanation. Now we’re speaking of the definition of the mitzvah.

Three Levels in the Derasha of “V’higadeta L’vincha”

Speaker 1:

Seemingly it means, the definition of the mitzvah means, that you could have said that the simple meaning of the mitzvah is, that if there’s only someone who doesn’t know, one should tell. That’s not the simple meaning. Even he doesn’t know, no, you can say three things. You can say that the simple meaning of the mitzvah is, if your child asks, you must answer him. It teaches us, no, even if he doesn’t ask, one tells him. Very good. He says, we have another verse, “v’higadeta l’vincha”, even if he doesn’t ask you. You could have said further, okay, in any case, the mitzvah is… Nu, the mitzvah is, if someone doesn’t know, one should inform him. Whether he asked, whether he didn’t ask, but he doesn’t know. It teaches us, I already know what the source of Yannetz is. That even a great chacham, great chacham means to say even you already know. So the mitzvah isn’t l’hodi’a, l’hagid, although sippur is simple meaning l’hagid means, the mitzvah is like one says to be mazkir (remind). Like Shabbos, one isn’t mazkir “zachor es yom haShabbos l’kadsho” because one doesn’t know what Shabbos is, one is mazkir Shabbos, it’s an inyan to speak about this. Like zechirah b’dvarim, this is all one thing.

Speaker 2:

What does mazkir mean?

Discussion: Two Aspects of the Mitzvah – L’hazkir and L’hodi’a

Speaker 1:

Ah, later he says, you see, the last piece he goes in, I don’t know if halacha 2 is perhaps only like a… I don’t know, one must learn halacha 2 and 3. The halacha he goes into the… the mitzvah l’hodi’a he speaks already yes of children, not of great chachamim who only say l’hazkir. So I don’t know how it’s connected.

“Mitzvah l’hodi’a labanim afilu lo sha’alu, shene’emar v’higadeta l’vincha”.

Speaker 2:

So, v’higadeta l’vincha doesn’t say after what it said that he will ask?

Speaker 1:

No, no, no. You learned Haggadah shel Pesach, this is before this says the other midrash ah, she’eino yodei’a lish’ol, at petach lo, shene’emar “v’higadeta l’vincha”. Yes, v’higadeta l’vincha says in Kadesh, still before it says… Not before, it’s a different parsha. Later a second parsha says that they will ask, another parsha says that they will ask, this parsha doesn’t say that they will ask.

The Halacha of Shinui (Change) and She’eilah (Question)

Speaker 1:

“V’tzarich la’asos shinui balailah hazeh kedei sheyir’u habanim v’yish’alu v’yomru mah nishtanah halailah hazeh mikol haleilos, ad sheyashiv lahem v’yomar lahem kach v’kach hayah kach v’kach hayah. V’chen im ein lo ben ishto sho’alaso, v’im ein lo ishah sho’alin zeh es zeh mah nishtanah halailah hazeh, va’afilu hayu kulam chachamim sho’alin zeh es zeh”.

Yes, “v’higadeta l’vincha afilu shelo sha’al, shene’emar v’higadeta l’vincha”.

“L’fi Da’ato Shel Ben” – The Halacha of the Four Sons

Speaker 1:

“Ul’fi da’ato shel ben aviv m’lamdo”. This is the measure, l’fi da’ato shel ben, but there’s no measure. I don’t know what this is.

Keitzad, let’s see, “Im hayah katan o tipesh omer lo beni kulanu hayinu avadim kmo shifchah zo o k’eved zeh b’Mitzrayim, uvalailah hazeh pedanu haKadosh Baruch Hu vayotzi’einu l’cheirus. V’im hayah haben gadol v’chacham modi’o mah she’ira lanu b’Mitzrayim v’nisim shena’asu lanu al yedei Moshe Rabbeinu”. Ah, why only with a foolish son, he didn’t understand much more? But “im hayah haben gadol v’chacham”… “modi’a mah she’asah lanu b’Mitzrayim v’hanisim shena’asu al yedei Moshe Rabbeinu, l’fi da’ato shel ben”.

Discussion: How Does “L’hodi’a L’ven” Fit with “Afilu Chachamim”?

Speaker 1:

What is the mitzvah l’hodi’a l’ven? I told you that there’s no mitzvah l’hodi’a l’ven, only a mitzvah to speak about this. Suddenly there is yes a mitzvah l’hodi’a l’ven. How does this work? That even if you already know, one says… I ask you, I’m trying to understand. On one hand, even if you already know, one must anyway speak about this. On the other hand, if someone doesn’t know, one must yes explain to him. It’s not…

The first, l’saper, doesn’t mean at all to speak to people, but to speak directly to the Almighty, as if like a rebbe who just makes a proclamation. This is something a different kind of thing from speaking to someone. So what it seems is that what one says that even chachamim didn’t negate, not like I said earlier that it changes the definition of the mitzvah from telling to saying. No, there’s a mitzvah to tell. Regarding the fact, I know, I’m adding in any case a mitzvah to say. Someone has explained. I understand that you said that perhaps the simple meaning is that even the chachamim know, there’s no such thing that they know yet yes. So what is the… Do you understand my question? It’s not a question, but I’m trying to understand.

“L’fi Da’ato Shel Ben” Is the Halacha of the Four Sons

Speaker 1:

The Mishnah, the halacha is seemingly the halacha of the four sons, right? Correct? Do you agree that “l’fi da’ato shel ben” is the halacha of the four sons? It says in the Mishnah, it says in the Mishnah “l’fi da’ato shel ben aviv m’lamdo”. And on this is built seemingly the Baraisa, the midrash of the four sons divrei Torah, right? Correct?

Let’s see what it says in the Mishnah. I brought here, let’s see the halachos here. What does it say in the Mishnah? There’s a Mishnah, what does it say in the Mishnah? It seems something that when there’s no son, there’s a mitzvah of being marbeh in words, but if there’s a son, there’s no mitzvah to be marbeh, but one must be according to the son. It can be that then being marbeh is sometimes a deficiency. If the son is foolish, and you’re being marbeh, he’ll grasp even less with the confusion. Because one must understand how to do it.

So it fits, because even the great chachamim is the opposite, let them be ma’arich, they won’t become confused themselves. But for the children one must be more strategic.

Speaker 2:

So the ma’arich isn’t a general halacha?

Speaker 1:

Continuation of Lecture on Laws of Pesach – Chunk 3 of 7

So to be lengthy (ma’arich), perhaps these are two different laws. It seems that way. There are two different things altogether. There’s one thing which is, one topic is, I imagine it this way, one topic altogether is… Yes, I think perhaps this is it, that there’s a measure (shi’ur). That when there are no children, on the contrary, go as much as you can, but when there are children, the child determines the measure of how much to be lengthy, according to the son (lefi haben). There’s a son for whom being lengthy will help, there’s a son for whom the opposite, tell him as little as possible.

Speaker 2:

Wait a minute, does this fit with “the poor shall eat” (yochlu aniyim)? What doesn’t it fit? It fits.

Speaker 1:

No, I think in the language of the Haggadah that we say for the four sons, whether we see there also such a thing.

Connection to the Four Sons

That for the wise son (chacham) we say a lot, yes, we tell him even until “one may not conclude after the Pesach sacrifice with an afikoman,” we go through everything with him, because he’s a wise son. But a foolish son doesn’t grasp it, if you tell a foolish son “one may not conclude after the Pesach sacrifice with an afikoman,” that’s a deficiency, not a virtue.

I’m trying to look in the Mishnah. In the Mishnah it says, yes, as you say, “they pour him the second cup and here the son asks.” So it says, “and if the son doesn’t have understanding, his father teaches him.” According to the understanding of the son he teaches him, yes, he begins with disgrace (matchil bigenut)…

Speaker 2:

I don’t understand what he understands in the Mishnah. I am completely lengthy, perhaps you are lengthy. Do you understand? I don’t understand at all.

The Rambam’s Order vs. the Mishnah’s Order

Speaker 1:

In other words, the Rambam wants to explain that it’s not like the order of the Mishnah, that there are the laws that he found in the Mechilta and in other places about the obligations, and he mixes it up as it comes out. The Rambam doesn’t say a word of being innovative (mechadeish), but it should be something new.

What Does “Ma’arich Bedvarim” Mean?

But when he is lengthy, something new comes out, some new understanding. So when a person is alone, he himself needs to be lengthy until he himself has arrived at a new understanding, a new grasp, a new feeling. But with children there’s no such thing, with children you need to go with the child.

Speaker 2:

What does it say about great sages (chachamim gedolim)? He brings a source, what do the sources say? What is the source of the great sages? I know from the story, the Haggadah.

Speaker 1:

Okay, that means with the Haggadah.

Speaker 2:

What is actually the source of this? In the Chumash, in the… What does he say? Even… even great sages, in the Mechilta.

Speaker 1:

Even great sages, in the Mechilta. He means to say the piece from the… Not so simple.

The Source of “Even Great Sages”

Later we’ll see that they used to be lengthy themselves even when they didn’t have yet. Here the Rambam tries to say the parameters (gedarim) of the mitzvah. The Rambam goes a bit backwards, right? Normally the order is as it says in the Mishnah and in the Haggadah, one asks the questions, and according to… corresponding to four sons, each one asks his questions, and if he doesn’t ask, one explains oneself and answers the answer. According to the understanding of the son he teaches him is stated after Mah Nishtanah in the Mishnah. That means, one answers the children, each one should understand, very good.

But the Rambam takes it out of the order, he wants first… Yes, the Rambam has the aliba deman, afterwards he says the order in Chapter 8. So, I want we need to understand what did the Rambam understand? The main thing is a law. First, there’s a law to say, there’s a law to tell. Two laws. There’s a law of saying, there’s a law of telling for the children. It seems there are two parts in the same mitzvah, I don’t know exactly how it works. And what you tell the children, that means according to the understanding of the questioner son (lefi da’at hasho’el ben). Does it fit? Makes sense? I mean it makes sense.

Speaker 2:

More or less. No, doesn’t it fit more or less? Or does it fit yes?

Speaker 1:

Well, “when your son asks you tomorrow” (ki yish’alcha bincha machar). Let’s see what it says here. In Avnei Nezer. Ah, you see? Reb Leizer says, ah, interesting. No, I’ll stay with my proof. Where’s the proof? It says so in the Mechilta of Rabbi Nechemiah ben Antoninus, “a gathering of friends of sages,” or “of Torah scholars.” What are sages? Torah scholars. “Who were engaged in the laws of Pesach until midnight.” Why? Because it says “what are the testimonies and the statutes” (mah ha’edot vehachukim). Where does it say that? Laws of Pesach? Yes. Therefore, one must take, perhaps you see what the sages do. One must take “what are the testimonies and the statutes and the judgments that Hashem our God commanded you” (mah ha’edot vehachukim vehamishpatim asher tzivah Hashem Elokeinu etchem). As if, this is the question of the wise son that we see, no? This doesn’t look at all related to the story of the Exodus from Egypt, it’s an external thing about the laws of Pesach.

Discussion: Explanation or Laws?

Speaker 2:

It’s a matter of explanation (hasbara). It fits with the first. Again, this is what I told you last time, that there are two ways to understand the whole thing. Either you can teach with an explanation, you need to talk about the thing. Or you can perhaps also fulfill it with saying laws. I’m talking about the praise of the Holy One Blessed Be He, well, for us the praise of the Holy One Blessed Be He is knowing the laws.

Speaker 1:

No, it’s precise. Or you can say that one needs to inform (modi’a), but informing doesn’t really make sense for a wise person, he already knows. You can always say, you’ll bring in, one can always answer the question, but the Rambam doesn’t say so, because he said “he begins with disgrace and concludes with praise, and expounds ‘my father was a wandering Aramean'” (matchil bigenut umesayem beshevach, vedoresh me’oved ovadim hayinu). Even in our Haggadah, yes, but for a wise person “what does he say” (mah hu omer), it says “the wise one what does he say… you also tell him” (chacham mah hu omer… af atah emor lo). Very good. It seems that this is the source that even sages.

Speaker 2:

And in ours it doesn’t say that there’s a mitzvah to read and to tell, it doesn’t say a mitzvah to read and tell in the laws of Pesach. That’s a good question. Does one also mean that “and you shall tell your son” (vehigadeta levincha) means to say that you shouldn’t just talk in generalities, but you should talk about the matzah, about the maror, because each one of them tells another part of the story, and you come back to the story. Yes, the maror tells how bitter it was, the matzah tells how the Jews hurried. First, you still need to put in the reason, you need to go into the reason of each thing, the details.

Speaker 1:

That’s a wise person, what is a wise person? He wants to know the statutes and judgments. Yes, I understand, that’s simply the plain meaning, but you can say so, a son with understanding.

The Structure of the Story

And so one goes covering more and more, and also one stays in the proper framework, because you don’t just say fantasies, because you hold yourself to the structure. It makes the maror, it makes the matzah, it makes… Once you do the four cups, he didn’t give any reason at all, and it wouldn’t have been proper for him when you know when…

Speaker 2:

No, I mean, the four cups hint at something else, a miracle or what.

Speaker 1:

No, it means apparently the laws. Yes, laws as they should be (kehilchatan), you’re going to cover the detailed laws.

I don’t know, I don’t know how exactly it works. “And you shall tell your son on that day saying, because of this” (vehigadeta levincha bayom hahu lemor ba’avur zeh). I don’t know, that’s what it says here.

Why Isn’t the Rambam Lengthy About Sages?

Okay, the Rambam isn’t lengthy about how the sages will do. You’ll say that the sages don’t need the instructions, they can understand on their own. No, it doesn’t say anywhere, it doesn’t say in the Mishnah. It says the story of Rabbi Eliezer, they sat and told the laws, what did they do? I don’t know, did they tell the laws of the Exodus from Egypt all night, or did they say the laws of Pesach all night. There are two versions in the sector.

Discussion: What Does “Ma’arich Bedvarim” Mean?

Speaker 2:

Okay, and what does it come to? I want to get to my point, that being lengthy is in order to arrive at something new, it’s not to say again. But with children, no, I think you can think what you want.

Speaker 1:

And what? Do I already know what being lengthy actually means? What’s difficult about saying being lengthy is just being lengthy? I’m thinking, being lengthy means that you should arrive at a new understanding.

Speaker 2:

I hear very well, because as if there’s a mitzvah to mention. I don’t know what the problem is. I want to understand what you’re saying, I want to understand what you’re saying. I mean, what is the mitzvah? How much? I don’t know, a minute? Ten minutes? Even better. Two hours? Even better. I don’t understand what the problem is. What’s relevant about being lengthy? I hold that it’s not lacking.

Speaker 1:

No, I hold that there’s a concept of the story of the Exodus from Egypt, to have a new understanding of what happened.

Speaker 2:

Yes, but I don’t see what’s wrong with the simple plain meaning, you understand? As if, yes, being lengthy, because a story, there is a…

Speaker 1:

It fits a bit what he says, because he says that even just a little to tell for the children, the many fulfill here the mitzvah of… A Torah scholar needs to be lengthy until he arrives at a new understanding. It’s not a bad… One sees, I mean, it’s a bit true. Yes, because for a simple son (ben tam), even if you tell him the basics, he’s heard something new, he’s heard something new. For a wise son you need to say something more so that it should have…

Speaker 2:

Yes, but why do you need to take the definition as new? Like you said, you need some reason why to think. I agree with you, I also like new things.

“Hagedolah Shebema’aseh” – The Language of Being Lengthy

Speaker 1:

Because “he is lengthy in matters that happened, the greatness of the deeds of our forefathers” (ma’arich bedvarim she’iru, hagedolah shebema’aseh avoteinu), the language is a bit making greater, as if. One doesn’t mean just making greater, one means adding something, a greatness. Greatness means making greater.

Speaker 2:

No, it means telling so that you’ll have pleasure from it.

Speaker 1:

It doesn’t mean new thoughts, greatness means to… It’s your words about the connection of making new thoughts, I don’t know. But the point of the Torah is, that when millions of people have a plague, there actually happen in the millions kinds of plagues.

Speaker 2:

I hear very well what you’re saying, I’m not disagreeing, but I mean it’s not the point. The word is to better understand what took place. Every year Pesach you should… you should the deed become…

Speaker 1:

But you’re going into the reasons for the commandments (ta’amei hamitzvot) as if, you actually want to understand what one has from this. But if one learns the Torah as law, the law that one must speak about this until it is one with itself.

Summary: Two Different Laws

Speaker 2:

No, but either way I say, it fits a bit. Why? Because he has a foolish son, is he exempt from being lengthy? Because for that son he has…

Speaker 1:

He’s not exempt, it’s different laws, that’s what I’m trying to tell you. These are two different laws. He’s not exempt. No, that’s what I’m telling you, the form of the son, and the one who says that a foolish son is also obligated in being lengthy, he argues on…

Law 7 – Continuation: Distinctions Between Small and Foolish and Great and Wise

The Rambam’s Language: “Like This Slave” and “Miracles That Were Done for Us Through Moses Our Teacher”

Speaker 1:

If one learns the laws, there’s a law that with you one will speak about the Exodus from Egypt.

But the way I say fits a bit. Why should a foolish son be exempt from being lengthy? He’s not exempt, this is a different law. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. This is a different law, certainly. He’s not exempt. No, that’s what I’m saying. The picture of the son, the one who has a foolish son is also obligated to be lengthy with the Exodus from Egypt, and he would have fulfilled. What does it mean he would have fulfilled? He fulfills with the minimum whatever that is, I don’t know exactly what the minimum is.

And you can ask further, and the one who has a foolish son, who is a great rabbi who has great insights, what does he hold a foolish son, and he needs to be lengthy with him according to his foolishness, what does he need to do? I don’t know, it doesn’t say here properly what he needs to do. As if, you grasp that we’re talking about a bunch of stories, and they gathered together and we’re trying to make one definition. Perhaps there isn’t one definition. There’s a meal that a father makes for the children, and there’s a meal that the sages make with their students. And each has his way how to do this. If everyone does basically the same mitzvah, they would have had to do everything the same way.

It would perhaps have been nice, because that would have unified all the things. The Torah scholars speak in law, and they come to the reason, because Pesach… Yes, but that’s a good interpretation, but that’s more like an exaggeration a bit like the reasons for the commandments, that you already have a level of understanding why. By Pesach one does speak a lot about the reasons for the commandments, because matzah is for this reason, and maror for this reason. We’ll already speak about this, we’ll already speak about this. That’s a lengthiness. I see there that I already read another Rabbeinu Menachem, something he says this, because Torah scholars speak in law, and they go into this.

Okay, let’s… Okay. No, I just want to come out with this, as if there’s the slave teaching, and there’s the remembrance. These are two different things. And what you say can even be correct. When it says great sages tell (chachamim gedolim mesaprim), it’s not necessarily not like I said before. I said that it means about the matter of remembrance, that they said. Perhaps even great sages do need to tell. What does he tell? You say learning some novelty, or reviewing the laws. I don’t know. I don’t know the word novelty. Perhaps according to his level, according to his way, according to how each one has his things that he can do. I don’t know.

It doesn’t say by the Rambam that sages should say laws. It says that even great sages should explain. Okay. Good.

Now they’re learning a detail in the laws…

Precision in the Rambam’s Language: “Like This Slave” and “Like This Redemption”

Speaker 1:

But I’m a bit interested in the language of the Rambam, “like this redemption or like this slave” (kemo sheyifdeh zeh o kemo she’eved zeh). Something sounds here like “because of this” (ba’avur zeh), he wants that everything should go with the Gemara’s something. He brings out, just like with matzah and maror is the Gemara, you shouldn’t say tradition to your children, open the Gemara. He found from this a source.

He puts down as if, I mean he thinks, he wants to think what the child doesn’t understand. What is the… It’s a bit funny, because he speaks literally of small and foolish, and great and wise what does he say? Do you grasp? No. “Like this slave,” “like this redemption,” “like these matzot.” Yes yes, but there’s something else. I understood something else here. I understood something else. We learn with things. I understood that the child, he understands, the small and foolish doesn’t understand what he means. What is the difference in speech that he says by the wise one, “and great and wise”? “Inform him what happened to us in Egypt and the miracles that were done for us through Moses our teacher” (modi’o mah she’ara lanu bemitzrayim venisim shena’asu lanu al yedei Moshe Rabbeinu). What does he say here more? He doesn’t say anything more. It’s very interesting.

Speaker 2:

No, he actually doesn’t say. He says “inform him,” he should inform at length, tell him all the nice things.

Speaker 1:

It doesn’t say here about length. No, just “inform him,” inform the whole thing. It doesn’t say here a distinction of length and brevity, right? It says. He wants to bring out some precision from “according to the understanding of the son his father teaches him” (lefi da’at haben aviv melamed). It seems to me that he wants to say something that a small child, you need to show, “this slave.” It doesn’t just say show. Perhaps he understands… What is the… I’m trying to be precise. He doesn’t say “what happened to us,” he also doesn’t say the word “Moses our teacher,” “miracles that were done for us.” He doesn’t really understand what it means that Moses our teacher made miracles and all these things. He understands very simply, there are slaves, that means slaves, we are not slaves. Even the Holy One Blessed Be He redeemed us, perhaps foolish.

Innovation: The Small and Foolish Understands Only the Result, Not the Cause

Speaker 1:

He emphasizes, I said so, very good, but I said he perhaps emphasizes that the slave, the small and foolish, doesn’t understand at all the concept of God made miracles. It doesn’t say there miracles, it doesn’t say there miracles.

Speaker 2:

But they see, they see the fact, they see the result.

Speaker 1:

It doesn’t say the cause, it doesn’t say miracles. Do you see? “He redeemed His people,” “He took us out” (padah et amo, hotzi’anu).

I mean that the great difference between the foolish and the wise is, the wise can also understand things that he doesn’t see. He doesn’t see any Moses our teacher, but his father tells him that there was a Moses our teacher. The foolish knows that here there is a free person and here there is a slave. He doesn’t even understand who became from slave to free person, God who the whole thing, the miracles. He understands only the result, not the cause. He understands only, and that’s enough, and that’s the innovation.

By the way, someone could say, “in praise of the Omnipresent,” he doesn’t understand what “HaKadosh Baruch Hu brought us out” means. Very good, they were slaves, now, how does one say, “now we are slaves,” whatever. They were servants, and now not. And this he understands. Even this he doesn’t understand just like that, it’s actual, what does a servant mean.

It’s also a very good thing according to the Rambam perhaps to make a display and also put up a huge servant, and say “ba’avur zeh,” there is a servant. “Ha gavra d’asiv arifta d’nahama,” yes. This is for the fools that he needs to do it this way.

Discussion: What Does “Miracles That Were Done for Us Through Moshe Rabbeinu” Mean?

Speaker 1:

But understand, I think that what I’m thinking is correct, that the small children don’t understand what the reason is. One can hear that this is the same thing as Moshe Rabbeinu is also a matter of miracles. I think that what you’re saying is very good, because to a small child and a fool one doesn’t say anything about Moshe Rabbeinu, because he won’t understand. He sees the difference between a slave and a free person. Even the miracles he doesn’t understand, right? “Padah et amo.” What does HaKadosh Baruch Hu mean? He doesn’t know.

It could be, perhaps this is the explanation, it could be that the small children think that the wicked ones did it, and the great ones know that Moshe Rabbeinu did it. This is already an explanation.

Speaker 2:

No, there is a difference. “HaKadosh Baruch Hu redeemed His people,” but not through Moshe Rabbeinu? What?

Speaker 1:

Perhaps there are such kinds of things. I don’t know. I know that there is a question, it doesn’t say “not through an angel.” But the Rambam I think knows that he’s talking here about miracles that were done for Moshe Rabbeinu. The redemption itself was above the natural order, as it says there “Hashem Yisbarach redeemed us.” Perhaps this, the miracles, what this means for the child one only says something happened once, you don’t need to say that it dragged on for a whole long period of ten plagues. And for the older child you need to say that it wasn’t one miracle of going out, but it was a miracle that continued.

As the Ramban says that a continuing miracle is a greater miracle. Not that you should say that Moshe Rabbeinu, you mean to say to tell the whole story, all the miracles, all the plagues?

Speaker 2:

No, you know what I mean to say? Because the Rambam holds the fact that the Almighty didn’t do… I mean that the Almighty did everything with miracles. Moshe Rabbeinu, all the revelations that were seen, miracles were done, we don’t know exactly what.

Speaker 1:

No, he’s not talking about the essence… I mean that for the adult you also say “u’fadah Hashem Yisbarach osanu,” and he adds the miracles that were done for us. Okay, okay, okay. Certainly he meant here to tell only the miracles that were done for us from blood until the firstborn.

Speaker 2:

You convinced me that miracles means from blood until the firstborn. Miracles means to say the miracles with Moshe Rabbeinu.

Speaker 1:

No, no, miracles means the Exodus from Egypt. But it’s called “miracles and wonders that were done for our forefathers in Egypt.”

Speaker 2:

Well, he means all the miracles apparently, miracles and wonders, all from the staff until Moshe Rabbeinu.

Speaker 1:

Could be, but the main miracle means the miracle of the Exodus, that’s certainly. Could be that it’s the opposite. Could be, but I don’t see that this is the main innovation. I think that the main innovation is the… In short, “what happened to us in Egypt.”

Matzah and Maror – The Basic Story

Speaker 2:

Ah, that means that because essentially the matzah and maror actually say only the two basic things. Matzah and maror is very strong. We were maror and we received matzah from going out. This is simply the story. It doesn’t say about slave.

Speaker 1:

Yes, it doesn’t say there the… “Eved zera shifcha zo.” It doesn’t say the matter of the slave seed of this maidservant. I don’t know. Okay.

It could be that he is explaining this, “ki li bnei Yisrael avadim.” He is explaining this what, that we were a holy seed.

Connection to the Rambam’s Approach in Hilchos Avodah Zarah

Speaker 2:

The thing that you wanted to bring in is that the Rambam explains about he talks about how idolatry began, he says this, that the common people don’t see the thing that is being served, they only see what it’s being served with. So when for example they made figurines and idols like these, certainly they meant that this is a hint to something, but the simple people don’t see the hint, they only see the thing. This created the problem of this.

Speaker 1:

No, he says the same thing, the child doesn’t know the why, he understands the what. The matzah, the maror, the slave, the even… But not more than that. Perhaps from here comes the… I don’t know how the Rambam took, but the “like this slave” means… That one made it known. Perhaps from the Haggadah it says… What does the Haggadah say?

Speaker 2:

No, the “all of us”… even… Well, what does one say in the Haggadah? “And if He had not brought out”… perhaps this?

Speaker 1:

Perhaps this brings out the point, I don’t know.

Speaker 2:

But one says everyone remembers that that one is still now a slave, that one is already two thousand years…

Speaker 1:

No, we’re talking about that one, but also it could be so.

Speaker 2:

Ah, that’s what you mean. That’s what one says in the “if He had not brought out.”

Speaker 1:

Could be, I don’t know.

Slaves in the Rambam’s Time

Speaker 2:

The place where the Rambam lived there were slaves a reality, certainly it’s not so. There weren’t slaves today? What? By him not? Workers, society… He was in Egypt or in Spain, he had slaves in his time?

Rav Rabinovitch’s Citation from Sukkah 57

Speaker 1:

Rav Rabinovitch notes the Gemara there in Sukkah 57 it says, that at night they said “pizru avdei.” What did he say? A slave whose master takes out the freedom… What does one need to tell him? He said, I don’t know what the language is.

I don’t find the Gemara, he doesn’t bring exactly the Gemara, he only says that it must be. There is there a Gemara that talks about

The Source of “Like This Slave” and the Matter of Changes on the Night of the Seder

The Source in Gemara Pesachim 116 – Rav Nachman and His Slave Daro

What did he say? A slave whose master takes out to freedom, what does he need to tell him? He said, “d’ishtabadt minei l’vasar.”

I don’t find the Gemara. I don’t bring properly the Gemara in Pesachim 117. What is there there a Gemara that talks about all kinds of about how one can… What isn’t there? Wait. Pesachim 116 page aleph. Yes. Here there is a Gemara that talks about Mah Nishtanah, about… I don’t see it, but…

Ah, by the way, there it says, the Gemara brings a Baraisa, tanu rabbanan… Ah, yes, I already know what you’re saying. First of all, the Gemara brings a Baraisa, tanu rabbanan, chacham bno sho’alo. What? His wise son asks him? It doesn’t make sense. His wise son asks him. V’im eino chacham… What is the meaning of this? V’im eino chacham, ishto sho’alto. No, wise, if the child is wise enough to ask, he asks. If not, the child asks. He is wise enough to ask. Yes, he is not an eino yodea lish’ol. A person who is not wise is a person who cannot speak. He is already wise. Yes, yes, whatever. V’im eino chacham, ishto sho’alto. V’im lav, hu sho’el l’atzmo. Va’afilu shnei talmidei chachamim she’yod’im b’hilchos haPesach, sho’alin zeh lazeh.

Interesting. It appears that the Torah scholars should ask each other questions. He brings it yes later by Mah Nishtanah. By the Mah Nishtanah he asks, he writes. But not by the main law.

The Story of Rav Nachman with His Slave

Afterwards it says in the Gemara, interesting, that amar Rav Nachman l’Daro avdei. Rav Nachman said to his servant Daro. Daro? Dara? I don’t know how to say his name. He had a servant, and Reb Avraham’l struggled. Got a servant, it bothered him so much that he is his slave. It can’t be, perhaps… He says that it must be, he freed him first. It doesn’t make sense. It’s good for him, that Jews are wonderful.

What did he say to Dori? Anyway, I just want to tell you, “Avda d’afkei lei marei l’cheirus, yahuv lei kaspa v’dahava, mai ba’i l’meimar?” He asks a question. “Amru lei, ba’inan l’didach l’shavuchei. Amru lei, patartan milomar Mah Nishtanah.” What is exactly the same as this. It’s so cute. You see here that Rav Nachman held that Mah Nishtanah is just a way how… I don’t remember exactly, he said that there are other ways how to… Now with praise he skipped Mah Nishtanah.

The Explanation in the Rambam – “Like This Slave” and the Topic of Question and Answer

From here is apparently an explanation in the Rambam. He wants to present the views of the Rambam of “like this slave.” Here he made the fake… One must have some physical thing to show that… Not that one must have, but one must perhaps more such a way to arouse the question. Here the topic of question and answer. I say the question too, the whole thing is so that the son should ask. Right? I say, this could be more such… Something is more slave comparison, connection slave comparison. Ah, a servant, what… Must somewhere, I don’t know, must something somewhere somehow enter into the topic. I don’t know, it’s interesting.

I don’t know exactly. I think that it’s interesting.

From here one also sees that one can fulfill Mah Nishtanah with all the other ways. “Patartan.” Rav Nachman actually said that he is exempt. He made koreikh to be the order. It doesn’t say that he must say all of Mah Nishtanah, he only says three lines. But he fulfilled it.

Anyway, so, let’s go arrange that I can understand. It was assumed, it was more than just talking.

The Inference in “Zeh” – Matzah and Maror or Just a Change

It appears that Reb Avraham’l didn’t want… Interesting. He says here, it’s a weak inference, but it could be, I don’t know.

It could be what he means to say that the “zeh” and “asher zeh,” yes, simply means matzah and maror. But the Rambam perhaps means to say that one can make with a poor person “zeh.” The main thing is that it should be actual, it should be in present tense. The previous “zeh” the Rambam used only to learn the time. He didn’t say that one must have matzah and maror, he only said that the time one learns from this “zeh” of going out.

This is not at all indispensable. By the way, this is clear, this one doesn’t need to arrive at this. You can see the next law that he will learn, let’s learn it. From the fact that one can make a change, the change doesn’t have to be specifically from the mitzvos, it can be any random change. It’s very funny. Let’s learn.

Law 4 – One Must Make a Change on This Night

“One must make a change on this night so that the children will see and ask and say ‘Mah nishtanah halailah hazeh mikol haleilos,’ until he answers them and tells them such and such happened and such and such was.”

Also interesting the language, “such and such happened and such and such was.” “V’cheitzad meshaneh?” Let’s finish. Cheitzad meshaneh?

The Difference Between “Ira” and “Hayah”

“Ira” and “hayah” mean the same thing apparently. I don’t know exactly the difference. “Ira” is apparently a change, something happened. “Hayah” is how it is. “Ira” is an anecdote, an event. “Hayah,” yes? That’s what one says about transgressions, I don’t know if it’s truly so. I don’t know. But “ira” and “hayah.” Apparently “ira” is something that… I don’t know. It could mean a pointed thing, I don’t know. I must say that I don’t know.

What Is the Change? – Roasted Grains, Nuts, and Removing the Table

V’cheitzad meshaneh? What is the change? One must ask someone who knows better. What? Cheitzad meshaneh? Yes, but the Gemara is clear, cheitzad? What? What does one do for example? Mechalek lahem kliyos ve’egozim, and… If it gives a whole reason of nut shells. Here one learns that one doesn’t give just like that nut shells to the children. But especially in honor of Pesach. I know, just a Yom Tov, but there are other worlds. Perhaps it means in the early time, it’s before Kiddush, whatever, one can find in the… In a manner of change, okrin hashulchan milifneihem kodem she’yochlu, which normally he talks about this.

The Ra’avad’s Explanation of “Except for Matzah”

But chutz mimatzah we see such a… You hear? And on this the Ra’avad argues and says that chutz mimatzah means something else, it means a law that one eats quickly so the children shouldn’t fall asleep. Very important, because we don’t fulfill this law. We learned last week that apparently one must do so, because we learned that… With stealing the afikoman and these things. Yes, because the Ra’avad’s explanation is also the truth, because we learned that a minor who knows how to eat is a mitzvah of chinuch for matzah. There is my three-year-old boy, he’s going to fall asleep before the matzah, one must give him before he sleeps a piece of matzah, then he fulfills chutz mimatzah. You remember? That small boys…

Chutz mimatzah means something else, one grabs away the matzah from him before the time, he should be hungry, he should stay up until we arrive at the mitzvah of eating matzah. He can make a blessing now, he doesn’t need to make a blessing, he’s a baby, he must eat matzah. So I, he says “Mah Nishtanah,” I’ll go give him a piece of matzah. He shouldn’t fall asleep there somewhere in the middle of the two matzos. It’s not a… No? One must say at the Shabbos HaGadol drasha that the public has small children, they should know that it’s a mitzvah for small children to eat matzah, perhaps also maror, zeroa, whatever, one should give if one sees that he’s falling asleep, give a piece of matzah. Certainly so one must do, no? One shouldn’t have actually a proof from chutz mimatzah, that’s what it means, no? Perhaps it means that the whole public should eat quickly, I don’t know, when one will make the Haggadah.

The Innovation – One Can Fulfill “So That They Should Ask” with Just Funny Things

Okay. It’s very interesting, because I catch… I think now, I caught a new thing that I never caught. That apparently, Mah Nishtanah is built on the verse. The verse says “ki yish’alcha bincha,” what’s going on here? Mah zos? In other words the Midrash understood. Mah nishtanah halailah hazeh, what is today? It’s the same thing, he doesn’t understand what the mitzvah is. You’ll tell him what one does in the mitzvah, because… Whatever the reason is. Here I suddenly catch that it’s not enough. Matzah? I don’t know. Law. One must do some funny things. I, the funny things is not a mitzvah at all. What you catch is very funny. How did they think that one can fulfill the verse of “so that they should ask Mah Nishtanah” on just a funny thing? You’re going to go today with a funny hat? You’re going to go today with a funny hat? Because the Torah said to ask? In short, anyway, because in order to fulfill the matter of Mah Nishtanah, here one learns that one can fulfill the Torah in other ways.

Discussion: Roasted Grains and Removing the Table – Explanations

No, roasted grains and nuts is not removing the table. That’s a different thing. One can say explanations. There are explanations, there are long explanations on all these things. But simply it’s certainly as the Rambam learns that it’s just a change so that they should ask, v’chayotza b’dvarim elu. He says clearly, one can find more ways how to do it. I don’t have to do exactly what the… Ah, he says, the Rabbeinu Yonah says first, he talks about the roasted grains, that roasted grains one may not yet eat, because roasted grains one makes usually from fresh wheat immediately, as this is chadash until tomorrow. He says, that one puts this with, this holds it from last year. This is for the children. Afterwards he says that what is the change? Because usually one gives it after the meal, not before. This is the… It’s an early order. But the Rambam doesn’t say this.

This is still removing the table. He says, “Mevi’in kodem achilah lefanav, kedei she’yomru hayladim lamah anu ochlim es elu kodem haseudah?” Okay. And where does he take this from? Who brings this? He says himself. He’s not… He’s not mistaken. He’s not mistaken with the study partner. Well, well.

The Seder’s Explanation – Removing So That They Should Ask

And you know commentators, yes, except for matzah… Ah, the Seder actually says the opposite. Not that the Seder, except for matzah with and removing so that they should ask. I look in Rabbeinu Yonah here. Ah, everyone, that if you spare yourself, you’ll fulfill the mitzvah of telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt. You’ll begin the mitzvah. Because this is how one informs the children that this should be the story of the night about matzah, yes? That the child holds the matzah in his hands, one doesn’t let him eat yet before one tells him, and one has fulfilled “v’elu v’elu sho’alin v’dorshin aleihem”. So learns the Seder. So also I understand. I look in to learn, I don’t know if I have another second piece. I’m not sure.

I know what Rabbi Yehudah says, “chotfin matzah b’leilei Pesachim,” even also all who need to grab the matzah he shouldn’t fall asleep.

The Story of the Exodus from Egypt — Changes So That They Should Ask, Asking Oneself, and the Nature of the Question

Grabbing Matzah — A Real Question or a Game?

Speaker 1: The child holds the matzah in his hand, you snatch it away from him before he tells you, has the child fulfilled “and we did not hear except from Avraham our father,” that’s how I understand it. I’m looking into the second piece, I’m not sure.

I know what Rabbi Yehuda says, “chot’fin matzah b’laylah zeh”, you need to snatch the matzah so he shouldn’t fall asleep. I don’t know. Interesting. Yes. I’m not sure.

So, there are interesting changes that are made here kedei sheyish’alu (so they should ask). It’s a wonder. In my opinion. Yes.

Question on the Educational System — Why Do They Learn Everything Before Pesach?

Speaker 1: It’s not clear, because for example in the Gemara it says, amru alav al Rabbi Akiva, the holy Rabbi Akiva distributed keliyot ve’egozim (roasted grain and nuts) to the children on erev Pesach kedei shelo yishnu veyish’alu (so they shouldn’t sleep and should ask). We see further that the simple meaning is not that they will ask why we’re distributing the treats, but simply that they should stay awake.

So, apparently from here one could say that the thing that they learn in cheder so many things, every child comes home the whole day, this is backwards, they’re doing a weak thing, one should come home and everything should be new for them, what’s going on here?

Perhaps Yoeli is right, in his town they’re crazy. But we don’t have any craziness before Pesach that they should ask at home before Pesach. I thought that one should stop this literally a day before Pesach, give a clean-up of the chametz, so that the questions should happen at the seder when they have the first chance.

No, every year the same, I don’t know. I don’t believe he meant that. I don’t know the answer.

Return to Snatching the Matzah — It’s Just a Game

Speaker 2: Or he is immediately shoel le’atzmo (asking himself). That is shoel le’atzmo, it’s not a real question, it’s just a game of a question. There’s no chatifat matzah (snatching matzah) means as if you snatch it, until you ask I won’t give you back the matzah. Okay, that means that a game is also good enough. Because the child doesn’t ask because it’s genuinely interesting to him, he asks because he wants to get back his piece of matzah.

Speaker 1: Well, that’s your point. You want to say that if the child didn’t ask naturally, you make him ask. But if the child doesn’t ask genuinely, because the child only asks because he wants back his piece of matzah, he’s not interested in the answer. You know what I mean? That’s like shoel letznah (asking mockingly).

Such a child who asks because it’s interesting to him, such a child doesn’t ask. He’s like the Belzer Rebbe who says “al abba, al ishah, al imah, al at.” To give him, you take away the matzah until you ask, and you get back the matzah right away.

Is that what we do? Yes, perhaps.

Ask me why, I’ll give it back to you. “Daddy, why?” “Because it was too early to eat, now you can have it.” Like that? It’s not a real question.

Answer: One Must Do Something New Every Year

Speaker 2: No, perhaps actually about… now one can answer. According to the question, if the children don’t know, so one can answer. If what we need to as if come up with new changes, because the first time he ate matzah, everyone already knows that. Every year one must change the laws. “Tzarich kol shanah la’asot davar peleh chadash” (One must do something wondrous and new each year).

Speaker 1: Aha. But then the child will ask, “Daddy, why are you doing that?” Aha.

Could actually be, because the Rambam brings three in the Gemara. What do I do the fourth year? The fourth year you’ll have to come up with a new one, yes? It’s not one after the other thing that one does, he brings three options.

Okay, look, we’re talking about what level child. We’re talking about a very small child. A big child, he himself already knows from last year. My dear, it’s already the chacham (wise one) who asks a better question than I need.

Okay, the Rambam tells us this, “afilu bein banav gedolim” (even if his sons are grown).

And that’s the proof that you brought earlier.

Law 7 — Order of Who Asks

Speaker 1: It’s a bit repetitive, yes, because you already said in the beginning “afilu ein lo ben” (even if he has no son), and here he says, “ve’im ein sham ishah, shoel et atzmo” (and if there’s no wife there, he asks himself). A new page, laws of asking.

I’m saying, the Rambam goes a bit funny, because the Rambam takes a seder and he makes from it laws, as if… because we know only the way how one does it, and the Rambam tries to make what is the obligation to do, which is not clear that there is such a thing. I mean, we see from the Gemara, the Gemara understood this way, because the Gemara, Rav Nachman said paturin le’olam (always exempt), we don’t understand these sorts of things. I don’t catch what you said, it’s… okay.

Question: How Does the Asker Fulfill the Story of the Exodus from Egypt?

Speaker 1: So ilu ben yesh (if there is a son), it’s also interesting, as if everyone has a positive commandment, but the commandment is simply that he knows the answer anyway.

Does the asker also fulfill sippur yetziat Mitzrayim (telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt) with the question? Like she’elat chacham chatzi teshuvah (a wise man’s question is half an answer)? Because how does the woman fulfill sippur yetziat Mitzrayim with the fact that she asks? That’s a really funny question.

Speaker 2: She hears, nu?

Speaker 1: Ah, she fulfills it with the answer.

Speaker 2: Perhaps the story is like the question is a part of the story.

Speaker 1: Yes, that’s how it goes, one asks and fulfills sippur yetziat Mitzrayim because one started the conversation.

I think so. It’s part of the seder hamitzvah (order of the commandment), every mitzvah is done by two people. I don’t know exactly how. “Ve’ilu ishto sho’alto” (And if his wife asks him). One must know that it must be like opposite.

Even If They’re All Wise — The Question Is in the Form of a Question

Speaker 1: “Ve’ilu ishto sho’alto”, his wife asks him. “Ve’im lav hu shoel le’atzmo mah nishtanah halaylah hazeh” (And if not, he asks himself what is different about this night). Afilu kulan chachamim (even if they’re all wise) they ask each other. The simple meaning is that the asker is not when there’s someone who knows better than the other, but it must be in the form of a question. So we also see that even when the question is not genuine, it’s not genuine, and you know the answer well, like by the chachamim.

Perhaps one needs to find that it’s a game of a question.

Speaker 2: Ah, mah nishtanah, that means the mah nishtanah, then yes.

Speaker 1: Even chacham oleh vadai (a wise person certainly), namely shoel le’atzmo. What does shoel le’atzmo mean? What does shoel le’atzmo mean at all? It means that he says the words of a question. That’s not a question at all in this case.

Question: Can One Ask Oneself a Question?

Speaker 2: And you’re asking a good question. Before this the Almighty says “mah nishtanah halaylah hazeh.” He says, one must before this it stands here, he says lashon she’eilah (language of a question). Can one ask oneself a question? Can one ask oneself a question? Because you already know the answer, perhaps you don’t know?

There are chachamim, they’re not chachamim at all, they’re not talmidei chachamim, but a person himself already says this, it’s not so simple. The Rebbe Elimelech says that perhaps, perhaps not. There are those who say one cannot, there are those who say one can.

What Does “Yish’alum Zeh Lazeh” Mean?

Speaker 2: And what is actually the simple meaning of “yish’alum zeh lazeh” (they should ask each other)? He asks himself “mah nishtanah,” he doesn’t know, he already knows. He says, one must ask a good question, because he doesn’t know the answer. It’s an act of asking.

I think that the Papa Rav says like this, that look, when there’s a man with a wife, okay, the wife knows, I’m the… there are levels, what should one do? That’s how it’s set up. But it’s a bunch of chachamim who will be silent a whole night, because who… who asks whom? When all chachamim ask, it doesn’t make honor.

Digression: Praying for a Friend — Parallel to Asking Oneself

Speaker 1: Okay. I’ll tell you a… it has no real connection, but there was an accident in Falls Tree, in Kiryas Yoel. They made an atzeret tefillah (prayer gathering) last night, and Rabbi Aharon Reicher came to speak. And he said in the name of Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky’s, he repeated in the name of Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin, that what it says “mitpalel be’ad chaveiro yotzei hu techilah” (one who prays for his friend, he goes out first), means even when the reason why he’s praying is because he wants for himself, because he wants yotzei hu techilah. I went after him to ask, I told him, with what is he mitpalel be’ad chaveiro when he means himself? He’s saying words of David HaMelech. He’s not saying… he’s saying the words of David HaMelech. So the whole matter is that he has in mind the other person. If he has in mind himself, with what is he mitpalel be’ad chaveiro? What does that mean at all?

He’s praying for the other person, but he… I don’t have an answer. I don’t have an answer. I’m asking, with what does it mean that he’s mitpalel be’ad chaveiro? If someone wants to come back to this, with what does it mean that he’s mitpalel be’ad chaveiro? There it means, I don’t understand, you mean to say he’s praying, he’s saying chapters of Tehillim, but perhaps he says “yehi ratzon shet’azor lifoni ufloni” (may it be Your will that You help so-and-so)? He asks for the other person’s peace, but he really means himself. I’m just saying a vort. It’s like someone already made an effort, how one has, “hey, I’ll pray for you.” Ah, that could be, so exchange to be the order of the two actions. But shlach mana (sending portions) is also for two people. So, I don’t know, but what…

Ay, conveniently two people know the answer and they ask. You understand? They certainly twisted the whole midrash. It’s certainly twisted. But in general, mitpalel be’ad chaveiro means, you ask for the other person. It’s a matter of ahavat Yisrael (love of Israel). You ask for the other person, but you mean yourself? It’s indeed what you did, you prayed for yourself. You prayed for yourself, so what does the world go for you? True. In short, they’re crooked things.

Return: What Is the Definition of a Question?

Speaker 1: So, what do you want to know? You’re asking the same question from the shoel et atzmo. What is the definition of shoel? If the definition of she’eilah means I don’t know something, and I shoel et atzmo, don’t make God forbid… perhaps it means that she’eilah means that I don’t know. It’s a nisayon hachavurah (test of the group). It’s a… I have pleasure when the community answers itself. People say that many Chassidic Torah is about the true simple meaning. Shoel, shoel, we know that shoel means to ask. Shoel also means to speak. Perhaps I simply can’t understand the rest.

Discussion About the Nature of “She’eilah” in Mah Nishtanah (Continued)

The Problem of Shoel Le’atzmo

Speaker 1: You’re asking the same question, when the shoel et atzmo. What is the definition of she’eilah? If the definition of she’eilah means I don’t know something, is I shoel et atzmo, I make the motion. Rather what, it must be that she’eilah doesn’t mean I don’t know.

It’s a nisayon hadevarim (test of things). What is the… it’s a good question, I don’t have a good answer. I remember that there are many Chassidic teachings around this, but the true simple meaning, I don’t really know.

Different Interpretations of “Shoel”

Speaker 1: Shoel, shoel, we know that shoel means to ask. Shoel also means, perhaps simpler to understand the definition of the word shoel. It doesn’t mean asking because one wants to know an answer, but that’s how it must be. But how that works, I don’t know.

I would have thought that perhaps shoel means like doresh. You have doresh beit, and you have shoel she’eilah, asking. Does it have some connection? I don’t understand the connection. A she’eilah is not like you say, it doesn’t look like that.

She’eilah as Connection — Asking After Someone’s Welfare

Speaker 2: My Torah is a she’eilah, but what answer is? Here you say yes, it’s hard to make it… I thought perhaps something else.

Speaker 1: You see for example the Almighty speaks with… there’s such a thing as she’eilat shalom nashim (asking after women’s welfare), like she’eilat shalom, right? She’eilat shalom doesn’t mean I don’t know mah shlomech (how you are), but I ask you. She’eilat shalom, derishat shalom (inquiring after welfare), both are the same language. Both of them don’t mean, I’m not really information questions, right? It’s a way, I meet you, I ask you mah shlomech, how are you.

So, it could be that like for example when the Almighty stands, yes, the Almighty asks Adam HaRishon, ayekah (where are you)? He knows. But it’s a kind of… it’s language shelo titpos et Adam HaRishon, shelo yitbahel pit’om (so as not to catch Adam HaRishon off guard, so he shouldn’t suddenly be startled), it’s some kind of hitkashrut im hadevarim (connection with things). It could be that the way of the she’eilah is more that he wants hitkashrut im hadevarim.

She’eilah as Build-Up — Starting a Torah

Speaker 1: Then one can understand that the she’eilah is the same thing as the shinuyim (changes). The simple meaning is, one must start somewhere. How does one start? One makes an aside. One sets oneself to say something is a bechinat nimna (aspect of being prevented), or bechinat… the story, like every Torah that the Rav says nowadays, he started with twenty-four questions. Which makes the answer more interesting. What the attraction is an excitement to be…

Speaker 2: Rebbe, but that’s a so-called real question, it’s not even. It’s simply a way to start. Like the Rebbe said, it’s not a question, it’s a build-up to the answers.

Speaker 1: Exactly, it’s a way to enter into this. Like one starts a chavurah shmuess (group discussion), what does he do? He starts “birshut kol hakahal hakadosh” (with permission of all the holy congregation). Who gave you permission? I don’t know. It’s true.

But mashal lemah hadavar domeh (to what can this be compared), the she’eilot uteshuvot (questions and answers) in general is the answer to the teshuvot, not the she’eilot. Like the Terumat HaDeshen, he himself wrote the she’eilot uteshuvot. Could also be. Exactly. She’eilat chacham chatzi teshuvah.

She’eilat Chacham Chatzi Teshuvah

Speaker 2: No, I heard another point. That the she’eilah means to clarify what’s bothering, and with that it’s chatzi teshuvah.

Speaker 1: I said that it’s a seder, and it makes sense, it’s a nice way to enter into something. I would have thought, ah, okay.

Why Dip Twice?

Speaker 1: The she’eilah here does something else. The she’eilah… the other simple meaning is, if you want all the things to make sense, all the leaning at the table, with this one makes that the leaning at the table is a part of sippur yetziat Mitzrayim. But the she’eilah has no simple meaning to do the dipping twice. Certainly not.

The Original Seder Was With the Son’s Question

Speaker 1: But if you want to make even more sense, I would say like this: the seder, the original seder was with the son’s question, as it says in the Torah. After there’s already a seder, one does it even when it doesn’t make sense, like many things. One says, what does it say in the siddur? Ay, it’s not Rashi, I don’t know what they mean, they went crazy. Perhaps this is the first time that we see clearly that you have a seder that doesn’t make sense, and one tells you “do it anyway, it doesn’t make sense.” Like Moshe Rabbeinu said, “ay, it says in the seder, what do you want?”

The Entire Story of the Exodus from Egypt Was Backwards

Speaker 1: It’s interesting, because usually a she’eilah is after something is there, and on that one asks a she’eilah. But to go make something for the she’eilah is a lozung (solution) to the side. But the truth is that the entire sippur yetziat Mitzrayim was that the Almighty made miracles so that He could redeem. “Va’ani aksheh et lev Pharaoh” (And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart) so that they… everything was backwards.

I also thought, if this is already mentioned, the answer to speak in sippur yetziat Mitzrayim. If this is already mentioned, the answer is already destined, it was also a fake she’eilah. But you can’t wrestle with him. You can’t give him my address. You can’t give him my address.

A Story

Speaker 1: And that’s the story. You want to hear a story? A Jew came to borrow money from me, and here ends the story.

—

Law: One Must Begin with Disgrace and End with Praise

The Law in the Rambam

Speaker 1: Okay, vetzarich, another law. Vetzarich lehatchil bigenut ulesayem beshevach (And one must begin with disgrace and end with praise). It’s interesting, because the she’eilah is also very similar to the lehatchil. Lehatchil bigenut ulesayem beshevach means to start from bottom up, as it were. You shouldn’t say right away, you could fulfill it by saying that the Almighty redeemed us, but two minutes. That’s also the build-up. Both have a similar seder. Both have a similar seder, yes. The way how it goes.

Vetzarich lehatchil bigenut ulesayem beshevach. Keitzad? Matchil umesaper shebitchilah hayu avoteinu… (And one must begin with disgrace and end with praise. How? He begins and tells that in the beginning our fathers were…) Because here he writes the greater novelty, because this comes… okay, here begins the sippur yetziat Mitzrayim. Bimei Terach umilefanav… (In the days of Terach and before him…) Okay, these are the two opinions, Rav and Shmuel, remember? The Rambam rules both.

Speaker 2: What is the other opinion?

Speaker 1: Read, read, read, I’ll remember both.

Three Levels in the Disgrace

Speaker 1: Okay. Keitzad? Matchil umesaper shebitchilah hayu avoteinu bimei Terach umilefanav kofrim, veto’im achar hahevel, verodfim achar avodah zarah (How? He begins and tells that in the beginning our fathers in the days of Terach and before him were deniers, and went astray after vanity, and pursued idolatry). Interesting, he says three things. Kofrim baHashem (deniers of God), yes. Veto’im achar hahevel (and went astray after vanity), verodfim achar avodah zarah (and pursued idolatry).

Speaker 2: All three are the same thing.

Speaker 1: I don’t know. Okay. Kofrim beyichud Hashem (deniers of God’s unity), apparently. Not entirely…

Speaker 2: Isn’t it kofrim bemah (deniers of what)?

Speaker 1: No, if you’re rodef avodah zarah it’s not…

Speaker 2: Kofrim is an Arabic language, right? Kofer. And… by the Rambam, okay, you want to say a simple matter.

Three Levels in the Praise

Dispute Between Rav and Shmuel: Beginning with Disgrace and Ending with Praise — The Broader Meaning of the Exodus from Egypt

The Third Stage of Eliminating Idolatry: Unity of Worship

Speaker 1:

And then there was a third step of eliminating idolatry. Seemingly a third step, as he says, and this is the yichud (unity). Yichud means to say, and in the third he doesn’t mean yichud Hashem (unity of God), he means yichud ha’avodah (unity of worship), in my opinion. That is, what Avraham Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu afterwards did, that one should not serve the idols, because when one serves idols one becomes a denier of Him. So the Holy One, Blessed be He, made the special intention, not a mistake, but to serve Him.

The Broader Meaning of the Exodus from Egypt

Speaker 1:

So what it consists of, according to this interpretation, is that the redemption was a much greater redemption. We weren’t just redeemed from Egypt, we were redeemed from all the generations of Terach, yes? This is what Rabbeinu Manoach says. This is the… One can say it a bit differently, that if there hadn’t been idolatry, the Jews would never have been enslaved to Pharaoh, because one says that someone who believes in Divine Providence has a better… Seemingly, no, seemingly, because… ah… because the story of the Exodus from Egypt isn’t just the story that they became slaves and were redeemed, the story is that they became servants of God, they became a worthy generation.

Question: What Does Terach Have to Do with Us?

Speaker 1:

The question is how does one begin. I once heard someone say, one can begin from the fact that Jews… two things, one can say two things. One can say that because Jews served idolatry, Egypt happened at all, as I’m saying that if the Jews had believed in His unity the whole time, if they had believed in Divine Providence… No, but I’m saying how to learn the plain meaning, what is the connection between the two things. But one can say that it was a redemption… Okay, but there wasn’t equality among the Jews. You see that from Terach until “they drew near to His service” there was a continuum of some idolatry. There was indeed Yaakov, there was indeed a good period, but… That could be. I was stuck when you said that Yaakov was.

Speaker 2:

No, but I just asked you the question, what does Terach have to do with me? In the meantime there was Yaakov who did have the faith. It’s not the plain meaning that Egypt redeemed us from Terach, there was… So far, so there’s still an answer to this. As if, the Rambam has a version of this, and Rabbeinu David Abudraham has a version of this, and the simple plain meaning isn’t exactly so. Why in the meantime was there the Exodus from Egypt? About the exile of Egypt. He doesn’t say exactly.

The Beginning and End of the Story

Speaker 1:

In any case, the beginning of the story was Terach, and the end of the story was the, as if, the giving of the Torah. Actually, the intention “to bring us to the place to serve Him” doesn’t necessarily mean the Exodus from Egypt, it means what we call the giving of the Torah, or the stage of “and I brought you to the land”, which is what the stage is called. Not necessarily… As if, one often says that this is the spiritual exodus and the physical exodus, or whatever. But, the connection between the two things isn’t clear.

Dispute Between Rav and Shmuel: Beginning with Disgrace and Ending with Praise

Speaker 1:

The Rambam has… “Therefore a person is obligated to inform”, it seems he divides it into two things. No, no, two stories happened, two longer stories. The dispute is Rav and Shmuel. The Mishnah states, “One begins with disgrace and ends with praise”. Rav and Shmuel argued. One said that what he means is… what he means is… “What is disgrace?” Rav said, “Originally our forefathers were idol worshippers”, and Shmuel said, “We were slaves”. This is the dispute. The disgrace is the idolatry. Shmuel comes and says that Rav said that this isn’t disgrace.

Speaker 2:

No, it’s a different kind of disgrace. The disgrace means a trouble, unfortunately, they were unfortunate. And this is a disgrace that they were wicked. Both are disgraces. This is a bad thing, and this is a bad thing. Well, I’m saying, it could be that this was a dispute about which disgrace exactly we’re talking about here. It seems that there were already two versions as if of the Haggadah that spoke.

Innovation: Rav Also Admits to the Exodus from Egypt

Speaker 1:

But listen, Rav, who says “originally idol worshippers”, also admits that one must speak about the Exodus from Egypt itself as well. At the very least. It states, “Therefore a person is obligated to inform”, it doesn’t say one fulfills with both opinions. Rav himself admits.

Speaker 2:

By the way, what I told you, I don’t know, because perhaps the “begins with disgrace and ends with praise”, the praise is intentionally “the place to serve Him”, or whatever he’ll say there. But it could be another weakness too. It’s certainly not the plain meaning that Rav says that the main story is the idolatry and being freed from idolatry, because according to him one could cut out the matzah and bitter herbs, the unimportant things, because it’s all a story that begins with Terach and ends with the commandments, which doesn’t make sense.

Speaker 1:

Well, perhaps actually? I believe one must think according to Rav that certainly the main story is the Exodus from Egypt itself, but something already began before that. About this is what I want to say, what else was between their idolatry, about this is everything… It doesn’t say that anywhere. I mean, it could be the opposite. The Rambam says, actually on the contrary, one must learn in that place, the Rambam says in effect, one must learn about… Could this be? Yes, but also in something that the Rambam has it very… One must learn that there is a thing that states about that… No, not sure.

Discussion: From Where Do We Learn “Beginning with Disgrace”?

Speaker 2:

Rav, certainly it states in the Torah “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt”. From where do we learn this “beginning with disgrace”?

Speaker 1:

He says, look in Rabbeinu Yonah. What does Rabbeinu Yonah say? One can say that the essence of the Exodus from Egypt is the “drew us near to the place”. Ah, already beginning to enter into the lowliness. It’s not entering strengthening with God.

Speaker 2:

No, but he brings a verse. “And God commanded us to do all these statutes”. What’s before that? It’s not a verse. This doesn’t just state about the Exodus from Egypt, this states about the entire Torah.

Speaker 1:

What’s the matter now?

Speaker 2:

Ah, he skips the continuation of the verse in “we were slaves”, which states “and God commanded us to do all these statutes for our good”. So from this one sees that he’s not just speaking about the Exodus from Egypt, he’s speaking about the entire Torah. The entire Torah means what you just said now.

Speaker 1:

Okay.

Speaker 2:

And the living one says the living one, “and the living one enlightens and informs”, yes, “and the living one enlightens and informs”, besides this.

Speaker 1:

Well, it’s a fresh enlightener. He wants to say something here, he wants to make not one story here.

Speaker 2:

Okay, and this is a simple plain meaning, because there’s no way to make one story. This is a simple plain meaning in the enlightener, as he understands.

The Rambam’s Two-Part Structure

Speaker 1:

I mean the Rambam says that it’s completely clear that one is entirely spiritual, one is entirely the beliefs, and one is the essence of the facts.

The Enlightener and Informer: Arami Oved Avi

Speaker 2:

“And this is that he expounds from ‘Arami oved avi’ until he completes the entire passage”.

Speaker 1:

How does the Rambam end? How does one answer the enlightener about the Exodus from Egypt? “By means of expounding from ‘Arami oved avi'”, there it begins from “Arami oved avi” until he completes the entire passage, until the end.

Innovation: Arami Oved Avi Doesn’t Begin with Terach

Speaker 2:

But lo, interesting, but “Arami oved avi” doesn’t begin with Terach, with Lavan.

Speaker 1:

The Midrash begins with Lavan, yes?

Speaker 2:

That’s true. One can sometimes give a like to her. Before that was Terach.

Speaker 1:

No, it’s a very big difference. “Arami oved avi” is no longer our problem, we were fine, we had some bad uncle, and he tried. Terach says that we are the problem. It’s a huge difference.

Speaker 2:

I don’t know. I don’t know.

Speaker 1:

It’s a great innovation, because “Arami oved avi”, the language of the verse is, one continues speaking about the… “Arami oved avi and he went down to Egypt and became a great nation and the Egyptians afflicted us”. One speaks about the same thing. From where does one take the entire spiritual story, the matter of knowledge of truth, the whole thing?

Speaker 2:

It’s an innovation of the Rambam. Because the Rambam also begins further, “Arami oved avi”. The Rambam doesn’t say the plain meaning of “Arami oved avi”. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Discussion: The Rambam’s Understanding of the Mishnah

Speaker 1:

“Beginning with disgrace and ending with praise”, when he says “Arami oved avi”.

Speaker 2:

It’s two different things. It states in the Mishnah, “One begins with disgrace and ends with praise, and expounds from ‘Arami oved avi'”. The Rambam understood that he’s speaking about both things, by means of the fact that he says this, he does a bit of the Rambam. How does he begin with disgrace and end with praise? By means of the fact that he expounds from “Arami oved avi”. But in practice it’s not correct, because you see that the “beginning with disgrace” is the current piece that one says before it, the “originally idol worshippers”.

Speaker 1:

There are around a million understandings of the Rambam, the “v’hi she’amdah” (and it is this that has stood), what is the plain meaning of the “v’hi”. It’s not the plain meaning in the Mishnah and in the Gemara. The “v’hi she’amdah”, what states there? “V’hi she’amdah”, this is the interpretation.

Speaker 2:

“V’hi she’amdah” doesn’t mean that the Rambam says that it’s like the law, that one fulfills through expounding. He says “v’hi”, this is here.

Laws of the Haggadah – End of the Chapter

Law 4 (Continued) – “And furthermore, one extends in expounding this passage”

Speaker 1: What is the plain meaning of the “v’hi”? It doesn’t fit the plain meaning in the Mishnah and in the Gemara. The “v’hi she’amdah”, what do you understand? The “v’hi she’amdah” seems strange to me.

“V’hi she’amdah”, do you mean to say that the Rambam says that there is a new law, and one fulfills through “v’hi she’amdah”? He says, “v’hi” is the interpretation of what it states “that has stood for our forefathers and for us”. No, no, this is the law, but this isn’t any… this is the law. I don’t know, perhaps there’s a better plain meaning. The two things is what one means to say “that has stood for our forefathers and for us until Avraham Avinu came”. No, no, this is the law. This is indispensable, not indispensable, I don’t know, but this is the law. And further, “v’hi she’amdah”, what do you mean? By means of this he enlightens to understand the meaning of praise. But it’s a bit funny about this matter.

“And furthermore, one extends in expounding this passage and the hints within it.”

Speaker 2: This is the plain meaning. Very good. No, no, no, very good.

Speaker 1: Again. Now you’re already saying a bit how one does it. How does one do the “enlightening to understand the meaning of the praise of Avraham Avinu”? And how does one do the “extending to tell of our troubles and the hints within them”? Also by means of extending in expounding this passage.

Correct?

Speaker 2: Interesting.

General Comments About the Structure of the Laws

Speaker 1: This entire Rambam here, he says, for example when he says “umitchilah ovdei avodah zarah v’chu,” doesn’t he inform him already from Arami? He’s saying the same thing, but… not the same thing. He’s saying… he’s repeating the mitzvah several times, but different parts of the mitzvah, a different way how one arrives at the mitzvah. These are different things, not several times the same thing. There’s a halachah of “maskil lehavin et mashmaut shevach,” there’s a halachah. Somehow, first the Rambam wants to lay down a somehow. The halachah builds up our Haggadah shel Pesach, the whole thing.

Discussion: The Connection of “Arami Oved Avi” to “Mah Nishtanah”

Speaker 2: But even a ben gadol v’chacham, does one need to ask him “Arami oved avi”?

Speaker 1: But on “Arami oved avi” there’s no concept of a question, it has no connection. Not the same halachah. That one doesn’t stand on this. When the Rambam says what the Tur brings, “tzarich la’asot shinui balailah hazeh,” he says, all these things that I just spoke about, that there’s a mitzvah of sippur, and that the sippur should be in the form of a question, and all these things, one should begin with disgrace and end with praise.

And you’re asking a good question, the Ran has the answer. He has an extra din. Giluy, if someone didn’t begin with disgrace and end with praise, did he fulfill the mitzvah of sippur yetziat Mitzrayim properly? He just didn’t fulfill the mitzvah with the thing that stands there in divrei kabbalah, that one should say “Arami oved avi”? Or is it lacking in the sippur? Because a part of the sippur is that. Who is that? The Ran. No, it’s not clear. The earth, the earth is the Ran. I told you, because I think the Rambam is doing something a little funny. He’s trying to go backwards, and it’s not the right work to go backwards.

Discussion: What is the Answer to “Mah Nishtanah”?

Speaker 2: And now he says something, that this is the minimum. No, but why can’t one lay down the same thing? Why can’t one combine both things? The answer to “Mah Nishtanah” is the disgrace ending with praise. Certainly the answer itself, it has two interpretations, it should be so, the answer itself goes according to the understanding of the son.

Speaker 1: What’s the difficulty? What don’t you understand?

Speaker 2: No, the answer to the “Mah Nishtanah” apparently is this is the halachah after all. Why does one dip twice? Because one should fulfill the halachah. Why does one eat matzah? One should fulfill the halachah. So this is the necessity for all these things, that one should fulfill the halachah.

Speaker 1: But I thought, the sippur yetziat Mitzrayim is why does one do this? Because the answer is the sippur yetziat Mitzrayim. I said, I said, it’s good, but it’s not an answer. One doesn’t need to answer. It doesn’t need to answer.

If a child asks why one eats matzah, and you answer him “avadim hayinu,” you haven’t answered him why one eats matzah. You don’t need to answer him.

Speaker 2: So already, it’s good. It could be what you’re saying, as if what you’re asking, as if what you’re saying, he doesn’t say, by the minimum, by the bear, he’s explaining the intention of HaMakom Baruch Hu. Perhaps that’s only for the wise ones who understand, because the little boys who only know…

Speaker 1: No, but he does say ben gadol v’chacham he only says, modin oto she’ein anu ochlin ela…

Speaker 2: Yes, but that’s included in that.

Speaker 1: Perhaps when you’ll arrive at the words “lefi da’ato shel ben,” you’ll see that it’s even cleverer.

Speaker 2: No, that’s included in that. I mean that it’s included in that. I don’t see… No, it’s not hard to believe. It’s included in that. That’s… what’s it called? I don’t know.

Notes About the Order of the Halachot

Speaker 1: But the truth is that it’s actually… This is the next piece of Haggadah. It’s a bit funny how the Rambam makes this into halachot, and afterwards he’ll go say the Haggadah. Because the Haggadah goes that first comes a Mah Nishtanah, afterwards comes a mitchilah, afterwards comes… You understand? We want to make from this as if halachot, so we work a bit backwards.

Speaker 2: No, yes, but it’s correct.

Halachah 5 – “Kol Mi She’lo Amar Sheloshah Devarim Elu”

Speaker 1: No, especially the next halachah: “Kol mi she’lo amar sheloshah devarim elu baPesach lo yatza yedei chovato”. Also is even more. What does minimum mean? Also this is the minimum of the mitzvah. I don’t know, I don’t know… I don’t know if the Rambam learns… Although the Rambam learns apparently that one must also say this, not just minimum.

Speaker 2: Even if I’ve done all these things, I spoke about Rambam, I said the words… That’s how one apparently understands in Rambam, because he says everything. I actually said like you, that Rabban Gamliel is not. No, that this is the minimum. If someone expounds, he goes into the depth of slavery to freedom…

Speaker 1: Again, again, you’re saying pshat in Rabban Gamliel. You want to say pshat in Rabban Gamliel, I’m saying pshat in Rambam. Pshat in Rambam is that one must also say this.

But the Rambam does say “Kol she’lo amar sheloshah devarim elu balailah hazeh lo yatza yedei chovato, v’elu hen Pesach matzah umaror”.

Speaker 2: He went in the wrong order, Pesach maror umatzah.

“Udevarim Elu Kulan Nikra’in Haggadah”

Speaker 1: Ah, no, I think perhaps… “Udevarim elu” – now figure out, I just want to say the end. “Udevarim elu kulan nikra’in Haggadah”. What? What is this “udevarim elu”? “Udevarim elu” doesn’t go back to the three things. It means simply all that has been said until now.

Up to here, in other words, from… No, from… “Kamah she’ne’emar”? From halachah 2 at least. Perhaps from halachah 1. Halachah 1 only says the mitzvah. From halachah 2, that’s called Haggadah. Have you heard of Haggadah shel Pesach? Haggadah shel Pesach is all these things that we’ve just learned.

You mean for the upcoming bein hazmanim, have you ever heard of such a thing Haggadah? What does he want to tell us? It’s one of the three funny Rambams that says, this is called Haggadah. Okay, and what do you want from me?

Already, good question, huh?

Digression: Connection Between the Three Things of Sippur and the Three Things of Rabban Gamliel

Speaker 2: I’m thinking a little Torah, perhaps he’s saying that the three things are also the three… Because the Rambam said three things by the sippur of avel, I mean from yes, from taharah: kofrim, to’eh me’achar ovdei avodah zarah, and afterwards was the solution was “shekeirvanu HaMakom.” And the Pesach that HaKadosh Baruch Hu avta avoteinu was the kiruv HaMakom la’avodato, yes? The Almighty used us and we were brought close by showing my house. Bechorei Mitzrayim He killed, bechorei Yisrael He redeemed. He showed that these are His children. And with what the nations tortured them, with that happened the havdalah netuyah. We still have a mazal that the Jews became distant from the Egyptians, with what they were slaves. Do you understand what I mean? Okay, further.

Speaker 1: Ah, so I don’t know, already enough. I need to give myself a little break. I don’t know what.

Conclusion

Speaker 1: In short, up to here, this is… One thing I understand from the conclusion, “horunu raboteinu ad kan hilchot haHaggadah.” Afterwards there will be other halachot about the four cups and other things, but what are the hilchot haHaggadah? Hilchot haHaggadah of Pesach is the four halachot, more or less. There are indeed all these… How they connect is very difficult. I don’t want any…

Already, up to here is the Rambam for today.