הלכות חמץ ומצה פרק ח

The Order of Performing the Mitzvot on the Night of the 15th — Law 1: Introduction to the Order of the Night

Introduction: Structure of the Laws of Chametz and Matzah

Speaker 1:

If one wants to make an introduction to the order of all these laws, seemingly the main chapters should be chapters 6, 7, 8, right? Because chametz and matzah is less relevant. That is, the laws of chametz and matzah are less relevant. The laws of how to make…

Before that are the laws that are relevant for this, the thirty days before the holiday, the whatever, the matters, searching for chametz, and all other preparations. Destroying chametz, nullifying certain chametz. But the order is the mitzvot of the Seder. People simply love the mitzvot of the Seder night. So seemingly chapter 6 is the mitzvah of eating matzah, and chapter 7 is the mitzvah of telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt, chapter 8 is the mitzvah of the order of the night.

Five Topics in Chapter 7

Speaker 1:

It’s interesting, actually, one can say as you say that maror… because maror you know what not, but reclining and the four cups… In chapter 7 it says like the telling of the Exodus from Egypt, reclining, the four cups, charoset, maror. Five things. And three, four of them certainly one can say are like part of the story. That is, the telling of the Exodus from Egypt, the reclining and the four cups are all like part of the story, and the customs of the story. Can you call them customs? According to the Rambam certainly presumably. The charoset the Rambam said is a remembrance of the clay. One can also say it’s part of the customs. As you say about the maror he didn’t say.

Innovation: Two Types of Maror

Speaker 1:

It’s interesting, your innovation that you say about Purim is interesting, because your type of Purim is very similar to the Seder. Your type of Purim of a feast and joy where there is a storyteller and there is in it sending portions one to another, is a kind of Seder night, a Seder of the day, whatever. Okay. According to the practical matter is that one must read the Megillah in the middle of the drinking. The simple meaning is, I say, actually, it’s set up that way. Such a holy Megillah one reads in the middle of drinking. It says in the Midrash, the Haggadah one says in the middle of drinking, right? But the holy Purim can be a kal vachomer, mah devarim kal vachomer.

So…it makes sense. But the only thing he doesn’t say is about the maror, it’s interesting. Because one could argue, perhaps actually yes. That seemingly like the idea of maror comes with the Pesach, why did they actually give maror? Perhaps it was actually as a remembrance of maror deror, like clay, like a remembrance of clay.

Speaker 2:

Very good. According to this one can answer why the Rambam doesn’t say anything about remembrance of clay, because remembrance of clay he says is seemingly what the Jews had. Very good. Because it doesn’t say that, it only says “maror”. Very good. Rabban Gamliel first said, Rabban Gamliel said a statement, “hemarat chayim” the language of maror. Aha. Very interesting. Let’s check how it says the language “hemarat chayim” the language of maror. Let’s give a check in the concordance on this.

Analysis of the Word “Maror” in Tanach

Speaker 2:

“Maror”. “Ki mar li, al tikre’ena li Na’omi kir’an li Marah”. It doesn’t say “maror” there. “Maror” is its own word. The word “maror”, if it’s a noun, an object, it only appears three times in the entire Torah. It says “al matzot umarorim yochluhu”. One is one. Where is the third time? Let me see if I can add a third time. Two times by matzot. And another time? I don’t remember another time in Parshat Shemot. “Vayemareru et chayeihem”.

“Al matzot umarorim yochluhu”, “al matzot umarorim yochluhu”, that’s the same verse in Parshat Bo. “Vayemareru et chayeihem” is in Tehillim. “Vayemareru” is in Tehillim? No, in Eichah. “La’anah varosh”. No, no, no. “La’anah varosh” is not “maror”. I mean, maybe one fulfills maror with la’anah varosh, I don’t know. But “la’anah varosh” is in Eichah. No, no, in Eichah it says, “he’echilani bamarorim”, and “he’echilani la’anah”. It’s an extra verse. But it’s the same time period, I mean, it’s the same time. So what? The same day that Pesach comes out, Tisha B’Av also comes out.

That’s the word “maror”. And the concordance makes it extra. There you see clearly that it’s bitter herbs. Yes, la’anah is also a bitter herb. It’s simply, simply simply la’anah. It actually says that… I don’t know what la’anah is, rosh and la’anah. Why doesn’t one fulfill with rosh and la’anah? But fine. If it’s a type of maror, it’s seemingly certain. Yes, fulfills, one fulfills. But I mean the person holds that marorim means that this is something bitter, or it’s a noun of a type of herb. But the root mar itself, ah, “kemarer hamayim” says about the water, “vayemareru et chayeihem”, like made bitter. But one sees “kehamar ason alai me’od”, that it’s a language of bitter to me, not very hard.

One sees “vayemareruhu verabu” about Yosef. It says “vayemareruhu verabu ba’alei chitzim”. But how does it say “vayemareruhu” about Yosef? He brings the verse, the person brings the verse “al tamar bo”. I thought that “al tamar bo” means about the angel in the Yerushalmi, “al tamar bo” is like rebellion, no? From the language like “shim’u na hamorim”. Like I also thought. In short, it doesn’t appear many times in the Chumash, for example, it only appears those two times. That is, marorim by Yosef, “vayemareruhu verabu”, seemingly there it also means the language of rebellion, no? That he was the important one of the brothers, they rebelled against him? No, there was no rebellion, he was the younger brother. They embittered him and fought with him.

There are other words that one can interpret, okay, it’s not so important. Ah, “bechi tamarurim”, what says “kol beramah nishma nehi bechi tamarurim”. That means loud, like “mar”, I don’t know, there are many interpretations there, not clear. “Eshkolot merorot lamo”, it says in… ah, bitter herbs, one second… bitter… bitter… in “Veyera’ash”, it goes up to the… Baruch Hashem, Hillel Rachel Flachal. Yes. In “Veyera’ash”, “eshkolot merorot lamo”. I mean he says both. By us one says more goes more, but one also sees… no, there it is yes. I don’t know where they brought it. “Eshkolot merorot”, “merorot”, “marorim”. “Merorot yachilenu”. “Eshkolot merorot” there it says “hezi’anu umarorim”, the food that one brings. But it also says “eshkolot merorot lamo”, it says in the rebuke, no? In “Ha’azinu”. Can one give this as a source? I’m looking in, I don’t want to say anything false. “Eshkolot merorot” means bitter grapes.

“Anvei rosh”. “Anvei za’am”. You know the language, “anvei za’am”. It’s a kind of thought. “Anvei rosh, eshkolot merorot lamo”. That is, the rosh is like the rosh of a snake, the same thing. Bitter, bitter things, yes.

Innovation: Maror D’Oraita is Seasoning, Maror D’Rabbanan is Remembrance of Bitterness

Speaker 2:

And perhaps because of that one drinks the wine, bitter wine. But one drinks a majority, that’s against the Rambam. That’s what I mean, that another way of eating maror.

Okay, to add to the matter that I wanted to say, that the interpretation is thus, that the original maror that comes with the Pesach is not the matter of being bitter. I mean, it’s bitter, but it’s not the essence. The matter is to season, it should be good. But it could be the rabbinic maror that doesn’t go with anything. Therefore, that maror is only a remembrance of bitterness.

It fits very well, because there is bitterness here. The bitterness is that there is a lack of the Korban Pesach. When a person eats the whole sandwich but the whole king is missing, the Korban Pesach, it’s bitter to him. And the bitterness is the bitterness of the Egyptian exile, and therefore it comes into this chapter, which is the chapter of the story.

Digression: Mor Deror

Speaker 2:

We need to know now how mor deror fits in with this. Because the Gemara says, “seasoning from the Torah from where?” Mor deror. But mor deror is a type of spice, no? It’s a type… “shenatan reicho”, “shenatet rei’ach tov”. “Mor va’ahalot ketzi’ot”. It’s not the same type… “Mor va’ahalot ketzi’ot”. Mor is not bitter. Mor is not bitter, it’s sweet. I don’t know what it tastes like. Mark, Merle. It’s not bitter. Chamar mar. I mean I’m getting stuck, I don’t know. Okay.

Three Levels in the Rambam’s Treatment of the Seder Night

Speaker 2:

Well, let’s return to our matter. Let’s go continue learning. Until now the Rambam has done thus: the Mishnah only says the order, but the Rambam has now finished learning the laws, now he’s going to say what one should do. Why he lays out the whole reverse order, I don’t know, but that’s what he says. The question is why the Mishnah lays it out. The Rambam continues with the order, but the Mishnah always goes like this. Not necessarily only that, one goes. Because the Rambam has already said all the laws, now figure out yourself what you need to do. Why should the Rambam bother? But we’ve already discussed that the Rambam wants that one shouldn’t need to look up in his book any other book. He puts in a Haggadah of Pesach, just as he puts in other places other things. Ah, at the end one will actually use a Haggadah extra. That’s another thing, there are three things: there are the laws, there is the order, and there is the Haggadah. By the Rambam you see three different levels of the Rambam, interesting.

Right. It’s already very cold. Yes, you say well. We need to raise the temp. Interesting. It’s interesting, I don’t know.

Law 1: Beginning of the Order of the Night

Speaker 2:

Okay, says the holy Rabbi: “Seder asiyat mitzvot elu balailah hazeh mesudor kach hu”. Okay, this is the order of how to perform the mitzvot. “Batchilah mevi’in kos lechol echad ve’echad”. There is a precision that each one should have, yes? It says “mevi’in”, not “mozgin”. Why? Because each individual is obligated in all the cups. Right. In all the cups? Yes. Yes. Yes. It makes sense that one can fulfill. One can perhaps fulfill the words, but the drinking one cannot fulfill for another, that each one needs to have a cup.

If so, good.

“Techilah notnim kos lechol echad ve’echad, umevarech borei peri hagafen.” He means here to hint that the custom that

Law 8: The Order of Performing the Mitzvot of the Night

Digression: The Mishnah is Made for the Wealthy

Speaker 1: No, but that’s the order that stands thus from above. Ah, mozgin lo kos rishon. There is one, there is the servant, there a slave. The Mishnah is made for the wealthy, I’ve seen it thus. Rabbi Yannai said, “The Mishnah was only given for the wealthy.” You didn’t agree.

The order is that those who do the Mishnah need to be wealthy with servants, I don’t know what you want. If it’s not so, the world is not bad.

I already heard my sermon Erev Rosh Hashanah, where do you daven Rosh Hashanah? What is this, one davens at “Koach Shimon”? What is this “Koach Shimon”? No one knows what it means. It means that the Torah scholars should be wealthy. “Yir’u tzadikim veyismach’u”, what is this “yir’u tzadikim”? “Tzadikim” are the Rabbis. “Machati rish’ah ve’alzah”. That’s what one davens, one davens that the false rabbi shouldn’t have any chassidim, and the true rabbi should have many chassidim. The problem is that each one davens it.

Now it doesn’t work. Yes, yes, yes. I’m just telling you simple interpretation, therefore the same thing, all Mishnayot are made for the aristocracy, for the wealthy. Who are the wealthy? Us! Not actually in practice, and if it’s not, one needs to do teshuvah, one needs to work more.

Digression: Maror Must Be Tasty, Not Torture

Speaker 1: A small note, not relevant here. But you asked earlier how one fulfills with things that aren’t bitter. The Rabbi rules in Shulchan Aruch “tzenunim vechazeret”. What does that mean? He always enjoyed chazeret, and yet he lists chazeret first. I don’t understand!

I agree with you that one must enjoy it. Bitter doesn’t mean that one must torture oneself. That’s not any doubt. But what was? Always one ate bitter things. A bitter pickle or a sharp… what is the main thing? The sharp tomatoes aren’t… spicy, whatever. Why? Because one enjoys it. It’s a pleasure. It must be the type of enjoyment.

No one eats something they hate. I mean, not at all. There’s no doubt that the maror must be tasty. It’s only which type of taste. Those who say one must have specifically bitter, they only say differently that one needs that type of taste. They don’t say that one should torture oneself. Those who say one must torture oneself, I don’t know what.

It’s a bit interesting, because the things that the karpas, tzenunim vechazeret… basically, Rabbeinu HaKadosh somewhere had vegetables. He wanted to make a nice Mishnah, a nice order, so he added. Besides the matzah and maror, he added other things that he had. He had his own tzenunim vechazeret, so he added karpas with… I don’t know exactly how it was.

Speaker 2: No, you said that the Mishnah is his ontological…

Speaker 1: The Mishnah is truly the Oral Torah, and you see it. Also the Gemara, all the Sages of Israel were wealthy. What was that already?

But the Gemara specifically has the discussion here. Rav Shizvi was a great pauper, and the Gemara discussed about this here.

Speaker 2: Yes, you actually have a question, I have no answer. What do you see here? That he doesn’t make sure that the Almighty should make him into a wealthy person. He would have been willing to be a wealthy person, right?

Speaker 1: No, until he came to his house he said nothing.

Speaker 2: But you see yes, Avraham Gamliel was indeed a wealthy person, right? And the Nasi, yes, yes, yes.

Speaker 1: It’s a good opportunity to mention the QuickPay address.

Speaker 2: Okay. And all according to the ability of each and every one.

Digression: Yissachar-Zevulun Partnership

Speaker 1: No, a wealthy person doesn’t mean idle, that’s a mistake. A wealthy person means… I mean the opposite, if it’s a time of honor of Torah it’s truly a revelation. The opposite. When one looks down on the righteous and one looks down on business, one lets him do business himself. But when it’s the world in its proper state, what should be is, the world in its proper state is that the rabbi does business with the rabbi. They do business and make a partnership, take a bit of investment.

Speaker 2: No, I told him, he wouldn’t have wanted to play it doesn’t go to make the rabbi a partner. No one wanted to make a partnership with the rabbi’s money.

Speaker 1: The Rambam’s brother needed the Rambam’s money, he didn’t want the Rambam to have the humiliation that he takes. So he took the Rambam’s money and went around with it, because the Rambam considered him a Yissachar. The Rambam mentioned about him that he is Yissachar, that he is Zevulun.

And therefore the Rambam himself is very angry at Torah scholars who take money, because it was enough for the honor of Torah. It was enough to sustain. Yissachar Zevulun doesn’t mean that one gives money, Yissachar Zevulun means that one takes investment.

But you understand, the Zevulun went around with a bunch of Zevuluns, yes? He can in a moment receive from anybody a hundred thousand dollars, why does he need your two thousand dollars? Because he wants you…

So says the Rambam’s brother, he didn’t want the Rambam to have the taste of that he is dependent on rabbinate. He took money from him, but…

Speaker 2: I don’t agree, it’s not fake, it’s very real. Yesterday, if someone has connections and he takes a brother and gives him a job, is it fake? He actually works for him. He takes my money and he makes numbers, I don’t do it myself, I agree that the whole… It’s a money partnership only. I’m not a… perhaps he gives me sometimes advice, I don’t know, but I’m not a practical partner.

Speaker 1: Well fine, anyway, that’s part of the support, but it’s not that… He says, I would have wanted to give you money, I’m making the whole thing with you a partnership.

Speaker 2: No, he’s actually a partner.

Speaker 1: I understand you, that if someone first has two thousand dollars from one person, then he has ten thousand dollars, and then he can from the next, until he can actually be a partner. I understand you. But I’m speaking now, every business started that way, right? It started, he inherited from father, from somewhere he started, right? So, that’s the best, a better way. I understand.

And he can lose also. If that one didn’t succeed in the business, well, then the rabbi also isn’t there. It’s not… today it also goes like that anyway, right? And he just doesn’t give. If the rabbi believes, it’s not my whole game.

But the truth, in today’s times supporting the rabbi is also not just charity. One calls the rabbi to ask information for you for a shidduch, the rabbi is busy, he gives speeches at a bar mitzvah, at a sheva brachot, he gives you attention, he’s there for you in your daily life.

Speaker 2: I agree.

Speaker 1: That’s neither here nor there. I agree. Not the greatest salary, but plain half a million dollars a year fits for a rabbi.

With celery one can also fulfill karpas, that’s a wonderful thing.

Back to the Topic: The Custom in Gur

Speaker 1: Back to the topic here. What I mean that you say, in Gur they introduced this, you know? By middot?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Lecture on Rambam’s Laws of Pesach – Chunk 2 of 5

Speaker 1: What do you mean they did business? That the baalei batim (householders) took in the Rebbe as a partner. That’s what it was called in Gur. The Rebbe is a partner in my store. It was that they made a percentage, and it’s honest. I heard this week, they had a Gur leader.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker 1: Yes.

Speaker 1: Let’s go. Here it goes.

“The order of performing the mitzvos of the night on lechem mishneh (double loaves) arranged according to halacha. First, one pours a cup for each and every person and recites borei pri hagafen, and says over it kiddush hayom (sanctification of the day) and zman (shehecheyanu) and drinks it”.

Makes sense. Simple. “And afterwards” — first kiddush hayom, then zman, and drinks it, one drinks it.

Discussion: Leaning for the First Cup

Speaker 1: “And afterwards” — one drinks it while leaning. I mean, earlier it says one drinks it while leaning, no?

Speaker 2: Yes, but it doesn’t say it here.

Speaker 1: Earlier it says that it must be while leaning.

Speaker 2: Earlier it says it while leaning. Why doesn’t he say it here?

Speaker 1: Because he already said it.

Speaker 2: Okay, but he should say it again.

Netilas Yadayim — Who Washes?

Speaker 1: “And afterwards he recites al netilas yadayim and washes his hands”.

Interesting, because he says “a cup for each and every person,” but “recites al netilas yadayim” he doesn’t say. Apparently one could infer here that only the gadol habayis (head of household), right? I don’t know. He doesn’t say “and all recite the blessing,” like he says…

Speaker 2: Because he’s also speaking about hesech hadaas (distraction) between the drinks. He already explained with the mevi’im lechatchila (bringing initially) here and another cup.

Speaker 1: What do I know, there’s some hint.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: Okay.

What’s on the Table

Speaker 1: “And afterwards he recites al netilas yadayim and washes his hands, and they bring in a shulchan aruch (set table)”.

And perhaps, what’s everything on the table? He says the order, he lists first maror, why doesn’t he say first matzah?

Speaker 2: Okay, read. Not so important.

Speaker 1: Maror and another vegetable, another vegetable that should be used for… We became aware that the other vegetable is used for karpas. And matzah and charoses and the body of the Pesach lamb, we’re talking about when there’s a korban Pesach.

He says the order how one must do it. One must bring a korban Pesach, you don’t have a Pesach.

Speaker 2: No, perhaps…

Speaker 1: Ah, in our time, he says, so he goes, meat of the chagigah (festival offering) of the fourteenth day. In our time one will place two types of meat, one as a remembrance of the Pesach and one as a remembrance of the chagigah.

Discussion: Two Types of Meat — What’s the Custom?

Speaker 1: So I don’t remember that by us there should be two types of meat. One could infer here that it’s good to have two types of meat on the ke’arah (seder plate). Ah, an egg, because we have the concern of kodashim bachutz (sacrifices outside). In practice one must look in the commentators. By us we also bring, by us we bring two tavshilin (cooked foods), but by us we bring meat and an egg. You can look in the Rambam how he understands. In practice there’s no simple explanation, one must see what’s the order of the ke’arah according to the Rambam. The Rambam looked at what the Torah emes (true Torah) is.

Novel Point: “Gufah Shel Kevesh HaPesach” — A Whole Animal

Speaker 1: It’s interesting, “gufah shel kevesh haPesach” (the body of the Pesach lamb), this looks like one means the whole thing, one places on the table a whole little animal. And from the chagigah it’s enough that one places a piece, “meat of chagigah,” he doesn’t say that one places the whole korban chagigah.

Ah, on Pesach there’s the thing that one roasts it whole, and not most, al karvo ve’al kera’av (on its innards and its legs). The chagigah is like always, one takes a piece, there isn’t the concept of what is a whole animal that one places on the table.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s a bit precise in the language.

Speaker 1: The Pesach is the only thing that one roasts whole, so one places it whole on the table, because all the pieces will be eaten. Which is not so with chagigah, one takes a piece from it, one eats today, one eats from it tomorrow.

One as a remembrance of Pesach and one as a remembrance of chagigah.

The Raavad’s Dispute

Speaker 1: The Raavad there in the book, from him it’s reversed. Eruv Simcha, and he says that there’s no proof from the prophets, and he brings that the Rema says indeed the custom that one shows the moon to the gabbaim, but he says that there’s no proof from the prophets.

Halacha 8 (Continued): Two Types of Meat, Time of Bringing the Table, and Derech Eretz at the Meal

Two Types of Meat — Zeroa and Egg

Speaker 1:

Which is not so with chagigah, one takes a piece from it, one eats today, one eats from it tomorrow, one part as a remembrance of Pesach and one part as a remembrance of chagigah.

In Rabbi Avraham Breinsdorfer’s sefer he brings his grandfather’s father’s “Eruv Simcha,” and he says there a proof from the commentators, and he brings that the Rema says indeed the custom that by us one doesn’t place it at all, but he says that it’s not a proof from the Rambam. It’s a good sefer, the “Eruv Simcha,” Lantzut-Bendin, he has good notes. Yes, he says there everything they said, so it makes sense. Wonderful. Okay, agreed.

I wanted to see about the two types of meat. Two types of meat is, but what do the poskim say about the zeroa (shankbone)? The Rema already says that one brings an egg as a remembrance of the chagigah, and they were lenient because it’s easier to cook and available to all, it’s simply easier. Ah, but it’s poverty. There’s still the concept of “berov am hadras melech” (in the multitude of people is the king’s glory).

So if someone wants, can he yes bring two types of meat, no? The Rema didn’t even write. He only said simply that by us the custom is meat and egg. Rav Yosef said that one must have two types of meat, and Rav Huna said that one doesn’t need to, we rule like Rav Huna. In any case, there are those who say that one should yes bring two types of meat. But there’s still a concept of bringing “berov am hadras melech,” so one should place that too. Okay, one can say meat is yevashes ranu vesira tova, one can, everything has a hint, but it’s interesting because the Gemara has several such hints on leil Pesach, basar chamor alah, and here is zeroa.

The Hint of Zeroa — “Gargel” and Kol Gadol

Oh, the Rebbe says a gargel from the previous previous of the pants, and he sells this as… it’s still a gargel, what is gargel? One doesn’t mean the hands, one means the great voice that will tear open the world, one says it through the gargel. Kol gadol is enough, kol gadol velo yasaf (a great voice and no more).

Shema’einu verachem aleinu, hatzileinu veha’aleinu mehagalusi. This is indeed the hint, what you say zeroa, one places a gargel from a chicken food, what is indeed the simple meaning of this? I know that the Zionists have some word why one places an egg, but it’s not… Yes. Egg? Like what? No, okay. What do they say? It’s a concept, nu? What? No, no, no, it’s a real joke, because the exodus from Egypt, the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, yes, did you hear me? It could be it’s really a word, okay. Okay. I don’t know the jokes. Yes, it goes like this.

Time of Bringing the Table — Before or After Kiddush?

Speaker 1:

In any case, so what are you saying like what? Yes, it’s interesting, one brings the table after washing, yes, rachatz and netilas yadayim, and afterwards one brings a table with all things. It’s interesting, by us we don’t do so, by us we prepare the ke’arah before the seder. The Rema has a ruling that it should be brought, but one should do it after kiddush, after kiddush and netilas yadayim. Again, from the law of shulchan aruch, yes, when must it be brought? Why is indeed the simple meaning? Why do we bring this later?

Speaker 2:

No, I mean that technically, once there was a small table that one pushed closer and pushed away, so at kiddush one doesn’t need the table, one makes kiddush and one is comfortable. So. When does one bring the table? When one is going to start sitting a whole time. But I don’t know, indeed the ke’arah should one bring after kiddush?

Speaker 1:

I don’t know, there is about this… One minute, let’s see. I believe that there’s a language “omer oleh ve’arba kosos,” no? I believe that there’s a Mishnah. I have it in the work from him. He brings it. Anu mesadrim lefanav. I don’t know, I don’t know what the simple meaning is. He doesn’t say. He only says that one makes the ke’arah. But why doesn’t one bring it after kiddush indeed?

The Rambam, Tur, Tosafos and Shulchan Aruch

Ah, he says so: “And they bring before him the table”. The Tur in the name of Rashi says indeed the opposite, even the Rambam himself. Ah, yes. So it says in Tosafos, that one brings the table after kiddush. Shulchan Aruch says indeed like the Rambam.

Ah, “mevi’im” says afterwards? Shulchan Aruch says later, in Shulchan Aruch HaRav it says here. This doesn’t mean the table, this means that.

In short, it’s not clear. There are opinions about this. But the Rambam sees it holds indeed so. He says that the custom is not so, why not. He says one should do like the Rambam.

Speaker 2:

Nu, agreed. No, one must look into why one does so. One can’t change a custom without knowing the reason for that custom. And look into minhagei avoseinu beyadeinu, what’s happening here.

Speaker 1:

Ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay. What greatness do we have? What do we have going to be our intellect to say why one does our order. Ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay.

Question About Shehecheyanu — Why Not Everything at Kiddush?

The ke’arah. I have another question. I see that the Rambam says that the kiddush goes out also on the matzah and the maror and four cups, no? This isn’t the kiddush, this is the shehecheyanu kiddush. Ah, the kiddush. Shehecheyanu, shehecheyanu. And so there is yes a concept that everything should be on the table, no? It would have been more fitting that at kiddush all things should already be. So that the shehecheyanu goes out also on all the mitzvos afterwards.

Speaker 2:

Ah, specifically? I mean one sees on Purim that the shehecheyanu can go out on mitzvos even if it’s not in front of you. But on the shehecheyanu one means the matzah and the maror, it would have been more fitting that it should yes be at the table.

Speaker 1:

By us we make all the ke’arah for the… for the… for the…

Ashreichem. One must indeed do not so. One must make some such ceremony, a while for a blessing, it’s a hove.

Speaker 2:

Like chametz.

Speaker 1:

Yes, the children… yochlu anavim veyisba’u.

He’s precise that in other places it says that one makes it on the day, about the… in Shulchan Aruch, on the day, and this is another proof. I don’t know. I don’t know.

Derech Eretz at the Meal — The Ke’arah and Derech Cheirus

Speaker 1:

I’m very not happy with our ke’arah situation. I’m always looking for some solution how to fix this. I’ve even thought this year to buy such a huge tray, one should be able to place on it all the foods of the whole seder, like a normal person. The symbolic ke’arah I very much don’t like. I’m not comfortable. One must remember that I already learned in the middle before the… perhaps one should buy a large tray. Do you understand what I’m saying? Such a large tray, place everything on it.

Speaker 2:

Okay. Perhaps indeed a table. Perhaps one should bring in a table. What’s wrong?

Speaker 1:

Yes.

Speaker 2:

A small table, such a… There are ke’aros that stand on a stand, have you ever seen?

Speaker 1:

Yes, a sixth of a large ke’arah.

Speaker 2:

And silver.

Speaker 1:

We’re talking about poverty, not about wealth.

Speaker 2:

Derech eretz. Even the poor of Israel, they have derech eretz. Even a poor person should make derech eretz. Okay, nu nu.

Speaker 1:

I hear. I hear what you’re saying.

Even a poor person should make derech eretz. Okay, nu nu. Excuse me, come, come, it happened. No, this isn’t one question, it’s a future. I mean that we don’t need to change our derech eretz at the meal, the basic. No needs yes. No, Friday night also says in the Gemara, I mean that in the Gemara it says various times derech eretz at the meal. But it’s only because one has this side concept how it is. This isn’t Friday night, we’re talking now about Pesach. What should be special? You’re also counted, because what we learn is also not our way of specifically eating a meal. Rather what, we do this not specifically how we are comfortable. One must know. Again, we must make it they should be comfortable. One can’t just sew. What is figuring out how you do this? How the thing? Tasty. One thing that one certainly may not do is put a spinach at the grandfather. This is certainly not derech cheirus. I’ll buy myself such a nice hat, so… from olden times. According to the custom of our fathers. Should I sing this? Should I say my grandfather’s custom? Which grandfathers? I have such grandfathers who conducted themselves so. Hello, you went somewhere. Yes yes, I’m with you. No, you’re not. When you say so it’s with me, you’re not. By me. Where did you go? You don’t answer me. Yes, went somewhere, but try to say when you come back. It could be that the concept why one brings it after kiddush has some reason with what one brings the korban Pesach. Korban Pesach one cooks exactly at the time of the stop concept when one should start cooking the korban Pesach. After the slaughter comes the roasting, but the roasting is already yom tov or what? No, not at all. Does it mean something to Shabbos yes or no? I don’t know. Okay. Let’s go further.

Halacha 8 (Continued): Order of Bringing the Table and Karpas

Discussion About Buying Cooked Food for Pesach

Speaker 1: No, one can’t buy Pesach. One can buy cooked. Cooked.

Speaker 2: But cooked applies already yom tov or what?

Speaker 1: No, it doesn’t apply. It applies if it’s Shabbos, yes, but on yom tov no.

Speaker 2: Ah, only if it’s Shabbos.

Speaker 1: I don’t know. Okay, let’s go further.

Why an Egg on the Ke’arah? — Remembrance of Korban Chagigah

Speaker 1: And not so simple, the reason that one makes meat or egg is a remembrance of korban chagigah. Because the Rambam says that korban chagigah… No, it’s not meat. The Rambam says that perhaps it’s another thing, but egg is not meat.

But egg is some… I don’t know indeed why, because egg is not even halachically fleishig, but here we have a novelty, it’s something connected. I can tell you that it’s closer to meat than… No, a potato has nothing with meat. It’s a tavshil of… I don’t know, it’s protein. Egg is always considered in the category of meat, even if not halachically, because it’s not fleishig. It’s protein, it’s a thing that comes from a chicken. It’s a novelty that it’s not fleishig. It’s a novelty that it’s not fleishig, this doesn’t make sense.

Speaker 2: No, I don’t agree with you. Milk also comes from an animal, you know.

Speaker 1: Not correct. The milk itself that we’re talking about in the Torah always comes from an animal. It’s not a novelty that it’s not fleishig. It’s an egg. Okay, let’s go further.

Speaker 2: So? Yes. You know? Yes, did you understand everything?

Speaker 1: No.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: I don’t know.

The Rebbe zy”a About the Time of Roasting

Speaker 1: I see that the Rebbe zy”a says “and it’s good not to hang the meat except after six hours which is after eating the Pesach”. What does “except after six hours” mean? After six hours means from erev Pesach?

Speaker 2: No, I thought perhaps this is “at the bringing of the table,” because one just now finished the roasting, but I don’t see why. One has a whole day to roast.

Speaker 1: Yes. But I don’t know what’s the… I don’t know.

The Ke’arah Situation — When Does One Bring the Table?

Speaker 1: The ke’arah situation bothers me. One must bring a table, or what or not. How does one do this? Perhaps one brings the table only after one is notel yadayim, so it shouldn’t touch the matzah before netilas yadayim?

Wait one minute, I don’t understand something. The matzah… I don’t understand, every time, every Shabbos one brings the fingers mixed. Every Shabbos one makes kiddush before… Kiddush is before netilas yadayim, yes, but every Shabbos one brings a challah, one places it down on the table before kiddush, one covers it in honor of the… because to wait that the kiddush goes on the bread, no? There’s such a thing.

Speaker 2: Right, so what’s the… No, it doesn’t go on the bread.

Speaker 1: Why does one bring it?

Speaker 2: I don’t know.

Question: Why Does One Bring the Ke’arah with Matzah Before Kiddush?

Speaker 1: Why does one bring every time the… the ke’arah also has matzah. It says “they bring before him matzah”.

Speaker 2: Yes, they bring before him matzah. One of the things is matzah, yes.

Speaker 1: So how does one not make kiddush on the matzah? One must make kiddush on matzah, no?

Speaker 2: Strange, no?

Speaker 1: How can it be? One doesn’t need to bring the matzah when making kiddush?

I don’t understand matzah. Why do you say it says matzah? It doesn’t say. “Another vegetable and matzah and charoses”?

Speaker 2: No, it doesn’t say from yours.

Speaker 1: Yes. I thought it says it fine?

Speaker 2: No, it says maror and matzah?

Speaker 1: It’s strange then. No? Not strange? Or yes?

Apparently, every time we make kiddush on the matzah. One must look, just in the Gemara it says this exactly. Let’s see. Why does one every time make kiddush on the challah, on the hamotzi? Why does one bring in the challah before kiddush? I don’t know.

Speaker 2: Nu, look at it again by Shabbos.

Speaker 1: I want to see in here where “mevi’in hasulchan” it says in the Gemara this language. It’s not? But yes, “mevi’in lefanav”, ah. But in the Mishnah it says that one brings it after netilat yadayim. That’s what the Mishnah says. Let’s go look now.

Looking in the Mishnah — The Order of Bringing the Table

Speaker 1: Mazgu lo kos rishon… hevi’u lefanav…

It’s not so clear. But yes, it says in the Mishnah. I thought it says. In the Mishnah it says, “mazgu lo kos”, and the next one says “hevi’u lefanav”. “Hevi’u lefanav” does it say matzah?

Speaker 2: No.

Speaker 1: “Hevi’u lefanav matbel bachazeret”. “Hevi’u lefanav hayerakot”, so says Rashi on the spot. So the next thing after kos rishon one begins talking about the… ah, “hevi’u lefanav matbel bachazeret ad shemagia lefarperet hapat”, and after that “hevi’u lefanav matzah vachazeret vacharoset”.

Innovation: The Rambam Changed the Order from the Mishnah

Speaker 1: Interesting. In the Mishnah it looks like one brings the matzah after finishing the karpas. Here it says that one brings it before the karpas. Yes? Yes? In the order of the Mishnah it looks like one brings the table of maror and matzah with meat after the karpas. And the Rambam looks like one brings it after Kiddush before karpas. And the Mishnah says, yes, mazgu lo kos sheni, the next Mishnah, vehevi’u lefanav, he brings karpas. And here it says hevi’u lefanav matzah vachazeret ushnei tavshilin. The Rambam looks like he switched the order, and one brings karpas together with the, yes, veyarok acher. That means one brings once, one brings the karpas with everything. It’s interesting, he changed the order from the Mishnah. One needs to know why the Mishnah says it this way, and why…

Tosafot: One Doesn’t Bring the Table Until After Kiddush

Speaker 1: Ah, I see Tosafot on the page says, hevi’u lefanav, says the Rashbam, means vegetables for karpas, ve’ein nir’eh, rather hevi’u lefanav means one brings the whole table, she’ein mevi’in hasulchan ad achar hakiddush. But why? Why shouldn’t one bring the table before Kiddush? I don’t know.

Clarification: There Is No Law That One Must Bring Challah Before Kiddush

Speaker 1: Obviously, there is no such law that one must bring the challah before Kiddush on Shabbat. There is a law, if one brings it one must cover it, but… there is no law that one must, yes. If one brings the challah after Kiddush it’s good, so it seems apparently.

Obviously, Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim, what is such a thing? Perhaps it comes from this? The Rema says generally the thing that one must bring on Shabbat and one must cover the challah. There is no such law that the Rambam says before Kiddush, page 270. He doesn’t say properly. He doesn’t say when one must bring it.

No, it doesn’t say that one must cover it, that one must bring it. Purat’s Mapah says about this, that one has strongly argued about it. Yes, if one holds in the middle of the meal. Purat’s Mapah various places. Okay, so then it’s simple. It already says a whole year one goes being concerned how the order is.

Innovation: Why on Pesach Night One Doesn’t Bring Matzah Before Kiddush

Perhaps This Is Indeed the Matter

Speaker 1: Perhaps this is indeed the matter, because every Shabbat one can decide whether one wants to make Kiddush on wine or on bread. On Pesach one doesn’t have this option. One wants that the person should remember he doesn’t have this option. So on the table there is only wine, because now the mitzvah of wine is a different type of mitzvah. But otherwise the person would have thought that it’s like every Shabbat, and he could have made Kiddush on the matzah. There would have been a whole disaster. Not a bad explanation.

Speaker 2: Every Shabbat both lie on the table, and he can decide which one he takes.

Speaker 1: I don’t know why he can’t. He just needs to make four cups.

Speaker 2: No, but tonight one can’t, because one begins, first of all, because on the… there are four cups, and there is an order, and it will disturb your order. There are arba kosot of wine. If you make Kiddush on bread, you now have to throw out the whole order. Now one will need to ask a rabbi how the order is fresh. Okay, it’s a good explanation?

Speaker 1: Okay, maybe.

Law 8 — Karpas

Speaker 1: Okay, matchil umvarech. I skipped over section 2. Matchil umvarech borei pri ha’adamah. One minute. Matchil… matchil… here one begins the order. That means, until now it was Kiddush, now begins the… the language matchil…

What Does “Matchil” Mean?

Speaker 1: Originally I mean, matchil means first one takes it, and after that one says the blessing. Not that one says the blessing and after that one takes it. Is that what this means? I don’t know. Do you know? Do you know? I don’t know.

The Law of Karpas

Speaker 1: Mevarech borei pri ha’adamah. Veyikach yarok veyitbol oto bacharoset, ve’ochel kazayit hu vechol hamesubin imo. Confirmed. You see by mevi’in kos lecholeh beShabbat, he said clearly,

Law 8 (Continued): Removing the Table, Mah Nishtanah, and Raising Matzah and Maror

Precise Language in the Rambam: Singular and Plural

Speaker 1: Do you know? I don’t know. One makes borei pri ha’adamah.

Speaker 2: Velokei’ach yarok umatbel oto bacharoset, ve’ochel kazayit hu vechol hamesubin imo.

Speaker 1: Ah, you see that he is precise. You see, by “mevi’in kos lechol echad ve’echad” he said clearly. By netilat yadayim he only said language of singular. And here further, each one eats. So one can see here that the Rambam has very good precise distinctions between what the ba’al habayit does and what the whole group does. One can be precise in his words, yes? “Mevi’in kos lechol echad ve’echad” he didn’t say that each one must say the blessings, one hears from the ba’al habayit, and it’s enough that only the ba’al habayit is notel yadayim. And here he already says, each one eats, “vechol hamesubin imo”, kol echad ve’echad, because one eats less than a kazayit.

Okrin et HaShulchan – Only from the One Reading the Haggadah

Speaker 2: Ve’achar kach okrin et hashulchan milifnei korei haHagadah levado. One removes the table only from the one who is reading the Haggadah.

Speaker 1: Doesn’t everyone have a table?

Speaker 2: No, apparently only he received a table, from him one can only remove his table.

Speaker 1: That’s what the Gemara says, “milifnei korei haHagadah levado”. That’s the Haggadah that we spoke about earlier, yes.

Speaker 2: See, the Rambam himself says here that we have shulchanot gedolot, we have large tables, and it’s enough that hagbahat hasal.

Discussion: Why Only from the One Reading the Haggadah?

Speaker 1: But why is the Rambam precise “milifnei korei haHagadah levado”, and the Lechem Mishneh, “ein okrin ela milifnei mi she’omer haHagadah”? Rabbeinu mevi’a ke’arah milifnei mi she’omer haHagadah.

Speaker 2: That’s what the Gemara says.

Speaker 1: What’s interesting is, why, does everyone have a table?

Speaker 2: It looks like yes. Perhaps it’s only on the main table… ah, perhaps this is indeed the point, because only the ba’al habayit has on the table the whole ke’arah with all things, for that one removes it. All others only have a piece of table to be able to make themselves comfortable, to be able to lay down the Haggadah and eat the piece of karpas. Okrin et hashulchan is so that the child should ask. No, that’s not what it says in the Gemara. The child should ask, okay, perhaps for that, there should be a change, there should be… this makes it puzzling, why specifically from the head of household one removes the table.

Speaker 1: Ve’achar kach okrin et hashulchan milifnei korei haHagadah levado. It could be that we fulfill okrin et hashulchan with covering the matzah, grabbing afikoman. The Rav held, God forbid, you say that this is not the order of the table, but he held that he fulfills it with removing the piece of matzah.

Mozgin HaKos Sheni – The Son’s Question

Speaker 2: Okay. Umozgin hakos sheni, vechan haben sho’el. Here one can ask out children. Ve’omer hakorei mah nishtanah halailah hazeh mikol haleilot, shebechol haleilot anu matbilin afilu pa’am achat. One must eat a kazayit from the karpas, it’s very correct. Ah, vechulu mesubin, ah, ein ochlin afilu pachot mikazayit. And also one makes borei pri ha’adamah. Ah, that’s certain, yes, on the maror later.

The Rambam rules that if there is a mitzvah, it’s like every time a measure of eating there is no less than a kazayit. If it’s not exactly a mitzvah, it’s only something a preparation for maror or a preparation for the children’s questions.

Who Says Mah Nishtanah?

Speaker 1: Umozgin hakos sheni, vechan haben sho’el, ve’omer hakorei. It’s not that the child begins asking. Kan haben sho’el, whatever the child can ask, as we already had earlier, each child according to his situation, what his wisdom. Ve’omer hakorei, it means that besides what the child asks, one should still say the language, it looks like.

It looks like the ben sho’el is not only with the language, but what one has taught him to ask. Right, ben sho’el, whatever he asks. But after that there should still be a question of the traditional text, the four questions. It looks like, one can even say, but specifically not the child should be the one who asks the mah nishtanah, but hakorei, the one reading the Haggadah is the one who says the mah nishtanah. And what are the questions of tonight at the seder?

It’s just interesting that one shouldn’t make it in the manner of question and answer, that one should ask from the reader. It would have been a better play, that the reader of the Haggadah sits and someone asks him, and he answers him word for word. But here it says that the reader himself is the one who asks.

The Five Questions (In the Time of the Temple)

First Question: Dipping

Speaker 2: “Mah nishtanah halailah hazeh mikol haleilot, shebechol haleilot anu matbilin pa’am achat, vehalailah hazeh shtei pe’amim.” Yes, that’s the first. Shebechol haleilot anu… it makes sense because one has already dipped once. Yes, at the seder it’s not asked the… one asks this the first question. One has now finished eating karpas.

Second Question: Matzah

The second question is, “shebechol haleilot anu ochlin chametz umatzah, vehalailah hazeh kulo matzah.”

Third Question: Roasted

The third question, “shebechol haleilot anu ochlin basar tzali shaluk umevushal, vehalailah hazeh kulo tzali.” It’s interesting, we haven’t yet said… okay, we already know, we haven’t said clearly that the law is that one shouldn’t… that the night shouldn’t have any shaluk umevushal. Ah, it means further, when there is korban Pesach. Okay.

Fourth Question: Maror

“Shebechol haleilot anu ochlin she’ar yerakot, vehalailah hazeh maror.”

Fifth Question: Reclining

“Shebechol haleilot anu ochlin bein yoshvin uvein mesubin, vehalailah hazeh kulanu mesubin.” It’s interesting, “kulanu mesubin”. “Kulanu mesubin” means each one, or does it mean one is the whole night in reclining? Because the Rambam said earlier only certain times there is a need for reclining. Okay. “Kulanu” doesn’t mean the whole night, “kulanu” means all of us. Yes, yes, all of us.

Ah, “bein yoshvin uvein mesubin” means like this, the more important ones… at every meal there are yoshvim and mesubin. The slave, the woman who they sit, and the mesubin. Vehalailah hazeh, all sit mesubin.

Speaker 1: Very good. Like even the poorest of Israel. Even the poorest of Israel, that’s the innovation. Very good. Usually the poor person doesn’t sit reclining, and tonight each one must sit reclining. About this there is the question. Very good.

Discussion: Why “Kulo Tzali” If It’s Not Only Roasted?

One says, vehalailah hazeh kulo tzali, why she’eino nikrav. It has nothing to do with it itself.

Speaker 2: No, it was said mevi’in shnei minei basar, but a guest, the meat is not necessarily roasted. No, I say the meat that the Rambam said earlier that one didn’t say roasted, so one brings anyway, sometimes it’s roasted, sometimes it’s shaluk or mevushal, so one can’t say halailah hazeh kulo tzali.

Matchil Bigenut – Until the End of Arami Oved Avi

Speaker 1: Umatchil bigenut, vekorei ad sheyigmor derash parashat Arami oved avi kulah, until one finishes the part of the Haggadah that expounds the verses of Arami oved avi. That means, until one finishes completely one is still in the genui territory, one is still busy with genui. It looks like in the end that the matter is that the table shouldn’t be there when one speaks of genui, shelo yir’eh pat bevishto, because now one goes back to bring, machzirin hashulchan lefanav. So until one finishes the genui the table has gone away.

Matchil bigenut umesayem beshevach. Yes, but as long as it’s genui there isn’t the table there. He says, here one begins. This is the third matchil by the way, you’re standing here, you notice? Here there are many beginnings. Generally beginnings are difficult. He says here, techilah mevi’in lefanav, matchil umagbi’ah et hake’arah, umatchil bigenut. He begins the Haggadah, that’s the main thing.

What is the order indeed the beginning of the whole year, Rosh Hashanah mikra’ei kodesh, as the holy Rabbi Aharon of Karlin said. He says here an order, an order, an order. That’s the matchil. He also says that it has to do with counting, one counts, one recounts.

Machzirin HaShulchan – Pesach, Maror, Matzah

Speaker 2: Okay, and after that he brings, ve’omer Pesach zeh she’anu ochlin al shum shepasach HaKadosh Baruch Hu al batei avoteinu beMitzrayim, shene’emar va’amartem zevach Pesach hu laHashem. And here he says on Pesach he doesn’t say a hagbahah. Only on maror he says “magbi’ah maror beyado”. Okay, it’s too big to lift. Right. What becomes contradictory, one says one brings the whole animal at once. I really don’t know.

What do the righteous say about this thing? They don’t want, they are happy.

By the way, it’s not relevant to the korban that one dips in charoset. He brings a bunch of Rishonim on this.

Speaker 1: Yes, but he brings so many Rishonim, ba’alei haTosafot, all had different… if not this, says Rabbi Yechiel, okay.

Ah, and by the way, he also argues about the kazayit of karpas, just a gedolah kol shehi, what the Chinuch lashon hara has an answer.

Discussion: Why Hagbahah by Maror and Not by Pesach?

But what is indeed the matter that the maror one must lift, and he didn’t say it on the meat? What is the matter that the meat he didn’t say to lift, and on the maror he said to lift?

Speaker 2: Okay, we can hear that the Pesach is indeed a large piece, there lies a large object, it lies, everyone sees it. The maror is a small leaf, or something a small maror in a small plate. One knows it, one doesn’t see it so obviously.

Speaker 1: Okay. And so also he says on the matzah, “magbi’ah maror, magbi’ah matzah”. The Rishonim here add immediately, I mean the commentators here add immediately that in the Haggadah the order is first one lifts the matzah. And so it should be, because matzah is indeed the main mitzvah. They say that it’s not necessarily so. So they say, he has something from the Mishnah, and… what? He says something about instead, let’s see him. So…

Law 8 (Continued): Text of the Haggadah, Blessing of “Asher Ge’alanu”, and Prayer for Redemption

The Rambam’s Text: “Pesach, Merorim, Matzah”

Speaker 1: The maror is a small leaf or something small, and a small plate, and one knows it, one doesn’t see it, it’s not obvious.

Okay. So things with the matzah, magbi’ah maror, magbi’ah matzah. The Rishonim here add immediately, I mean the commentators add immediately that in the Haggadah the order is first one lifts the matzah, and so it should be because matzah is indeed the main mitzvah. The Rambam is not necessarily so. So he says, he has something…

Explanation of Chatam Sofer / Rabbi Avraham Av Beit Din: Maror Is Connected to Pesach

The Chatam Sofer… what? He says some explanation… let’s see. That what? The Rambam earlier also said “Pesach, merorim, matzah”. So the Rambam also had in chapter 7, the Gemara had a different text there, but he also says “Pesach, merorim, matzah”. And he says because apparently very good, because there are indeed two marors, we just learned now. Maror comes indeed together with Pesach. Unlike matzah which is a different matzah, not the matzah that comes together with Pesach. Therefore Pesach and maror go together, do you understand? Maror comes indeed… so the matter is to have a maror on the other… ah, therefore the maror is connected after the Pesach.

Speaker 2: Why does it say differently in the Mishnah?

Speaker 1: Okay, the Rambam understood it this way. He says some explanation on this also, let’s see. He says some explanation on this also. No, he says that it agrees with the text of the Rav. Says the Rabbeinu Manoach that in the text of the Rav himself later it indeed says the order first matzah. In the order of the Haggadah. But it could be because it makes sense, because we don’t do the maror of the Pesach.

Speaker 2: Ah, you mean to say essentially it should have been this way, because it’s dragged along after.

Speaker 1: Because the Rambam writes here indeed kulo, at the time when the Temple existed, perhaps then they made it in this order indeed, the maror would have come together with the… do you understand what I’m saying? But today when one does differently, because today it has a different importance, as if matzah is more important because it’s from the Torah.

Speaker 2: Ah, right. At the time of the Temple it was matzah, maror from the Torah, maror is connected with Pesach. Right?

Speaker 1: Yes. Makes very good sense. That’s Rabbi Avraham Av Beit Din’s explanation, it’s a very nice explanation.

Speaker 2: Why aren’t you so happy with it?

Text “Matzah Zo She’anu Ochlim” and “Pesach Shehayu Ochlim”

Speaker 1: Okay. “This matzah that we eat, for what reason?” And he lifts the matzah in his hand and says: “This matzah,” yes, what does he say? He says from here. “He lifts the matzah in his hand and says: ‘This matzah that we eat, for what reason? Because the dough of our fathers did not have time to become leavened before the King of Kings of Kings, the Holy One Blessed Be He, revealed Himself to them and redeemed them, as it is stated: “And they baked the dough which they brought out of Egypt into cakes of matzot, for it had not leavened, because they were driven out of Egypt and could not delay, and they had also not prepared provisions for themselves.”‘ In this time he should say,” in this time is the time that we are now holding by Pesach, “the Pesach that our fathers used to eat at the time when the Temple was standing, for what reason? Because the Holy One Blessed Be He passed over the houses of our fathers in Egypt.” He doesn’t say “that we eat,” yes.

Speaker 2: He doesn’t say “at the time when the Temple was standing,” he says “at the time when the Temple stands.”

The Text of “Therefore We Are Obligated to Thank”

Speaker 1: Okay, and after that he says, what does he say? “Therefore we are obligated to thank, to praise, to laud, to glorify, to exalt, to honor, to bless, and to acclaim.” Take, yes, the expressions of praise, “the One who performed for us and for our fathers.”

Speaker 2: By me it says: to thank, to praise, to laud, to glorify, to bless, to exalt, to honor, to acclaim. By me it doesn’t say our fathers.

Speaker 1: By me it says to exalt, to honor, to bless, to acclaim in his version.

Speaker 2: Yes, I don’t know, I go with my version.

Speaker 1: Do however it works for you.

“The One who performed for us,” in short, “the One who performed for us and for our fathers.”

Speaker 2: By me it doesn’t say any our fathers.

Speaker 1: Yes, no, here he brings for us and for our fathers, and manuscript Aleph Kuf is here one word zo. “All these miracles.”

Speaker 2: It’s quite good, the “for us” I understand what it is with the “to exclude himself from the community,” he left Egypt.

Speaker 1: No, “He brought us out from slavery to freedom.”

Speaker 2: From slavery to freedom, from sorrow to joy, and from mourning to festival, and from darkness to great light, and from servitude to redemption.

Speaker 1: Ah, all these, he leaves out all these expressions. The Rambam says so, that we must have it, and now we look in our Haggadah, “and let us say before Him Halleluyah.”

“And Let Us Say Before Him Halleluyah” — Beginning of Hallel

“And let us say before Him” – we begin to say, “and let us say before Him Halleluyah, praise, servants of Hashem, until He turns the flint into a fountain of water.” We begin to say, what does it say? “And let us say before Him Halleluyah Halleluyah.” No, I already said it. So the Rambam does it like this, “and let us say before Him” and we say Hallel, the first two pieces of Hallel.

Speaker 2: Ah, “and let us say before Him” is now we’re going to say, no?

Speaker 1: Yes yes, according to Chinuch Lanaar, yes. One is obligated to do so and say so. “And he concludes” – and you see indeed as I have now finished saying, and we indeed say the entire Hallel. It’s a bit interesting that we were told to say, and ah, I have now indeed said it, and “and let us say,” we will say.

Speaker 2: Ah, “and let us say before Him praise, servants of Hashem,” okay, very good.

The Blessing of “Who Redeemed Us and Redeemed Our Fathers”

Speaker 1: “And he concludes Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe,” and we say, and we conclude, the conclusion of the Haggadah is “Who redeemed us and redeemed our fathers from Egypt.” The Haggadah and the Hallel, yes, is “Who redeemed us and redeemed our fathers,” yes. But also, we begin with “redeemed us,” interesting, “and redeemed our fathers from Egypt.” “And brought us to this night.” “This night” it says by me. “To this night” it says here in his version.

Speaker 2: Who?

Speaker 1: Not me, I don’t have Frenkel anymore, I have an English one.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s still fake.

Speaker 1: I know, I need to look in Rav Sherira’s notes. I have a Jerusalem edition, I need to look, I have it there, this is a printed version. Anyway, Rav Sherira says “the night.” Ah, yes.

Speaker 2: “And let us say before Him Halleluyah.”

Speaker 1: And we say further, he says that Rabbeinu Saadia himself says “the night” in the Mishnah. It’s different, it translates differently the word “and brought us.” “And brought us to this night,” or “and brought us” has brought us.

Speaker 2: Eh, the same thing basically.

Speaker 1: Ah, the Master of the Universe has brought us to this night. Brought us to eat.

“To Eat Matzah and Maror” — Maror in Plural

“To eat matzah and maror.” The Rambam holds that it says matzah and maror, because maror is anyway always plural, there is no singular maror.

Speaker 2: Aha.

Speaker 1: Seemingly by the blessing he also says so, “on eating maror.” How does his blessing go? We would need to see.

Speaker 2: Yes, he says “on eating matzah and maror” he says when he says the…

Speaker 1: Yes, but not when he makes a maror alone.

Speaker 2: Ah, a maror alone is “on eating maror.”

Speaker 1: Aha. We see that the marorim refers to “they shall eat it with matzot and marorim,” the marorim of the Korban Pesach. That the maror is maror alone. This is a novelty that we see here.

Addition “In This Time”: Prayer for Redemption

“In this time he adds ‘Bring us, Hashem our God,'” that one doesn’t need to pray for an actual redemption, one says “Bring us, Hashem our God, to other festivals and holidays,” but then it should already be in completeness, it should be “rejoicing in the building of Your city and joyful in Your service, to eat.” It’s very interesting, because until now we haven’t seen, it was a whole joy. One must make oneself, one must be in joy. When there will be the redemption, then there will be truly rejoicing and joyful. Until then one makes oneself, one tries one’s best. “Rejoicing in the building of Your city and joyful in Your service, to eat.”

“And we shall eat there from the offerings and from the Pesach sacrifices.” Does it say “and we shall eat there” by you? Here next to me it says “and we shall eat there,” yes.

Speaker 2: By me it says “to eat.”

Speaker 1: Ah, “to eat.” What does he say one should say? It’s “bring us” goes up to the “to eat.” “Bring us to eat,” as if. “To eat from the offerings and from the Pesach sacrifices.” The offerings are seemingly the chagigah, yes? And one eats first the offerings, one eats Pesach al hasova, one eats first meat. “Whose blood shall reach the wall of Your altar favorably.”

Precision: “Wall of Your Altar” — Hint to the Ke’arah

It’s an interesting expression “wall of Your altar.” Why does one say here “wall of Your altar”? One sprinkles on top of the altar. One should have said “wall of the altar.”

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker 1: No, “wall” hints to ke’arah.

Speaker 2: Okay, it’s in the verse.

Speaker 1: It’s the language of the verse, but why was this taken here?

Speaker 2: Okay, others interpret that “wall” hints to the ke’arah, and “Your altar” is the letters maror, zeroa, beitzah, charoset. Do you know about this? Karpas, mizbecha.

Speaker 1: You’ll know now. My father says it every year. Kir hints to the ke’arah, mizbecha is maror, zeroa, beitzah, charoset, karpas. It fits, nice. Favorably.

“And We Shall Thank You with a New Song” — New Song in the Future

“And we shall thank You with a new song on our redemption and on the liberation of our souls.” Then, precisely then one must indeed say a new song. But what is it that we are accustomed to say the song of David? The old song. The previous song. Or not from David, it’s even earlier than David, but… a new song, “on our redemption and on the liberation of our souls.” But one must indeed make then… then one must indeed make a new Hallel. I don’t know who, there must be a whole Torah who makes it, the Ashkenazic, or the Sephardic, or the Lithuanian.

“On our redemption and on the liberation of our souls, Blessed are You, Hashem, Who redeemed Israel, and Blessed are You, Hashem, Who redeemed us.” One, seemingly the Blessed are You, Hashem, Who redeemed Israel one says also in this time, right?

Speaker 2: What? The Blessed are You, Hashem, Who redeemed Israel, that is…

Speaker 1: Has redeemed.

Speaker 2: No, no, that speaks of Egypt. Redeemed from Egypt.

Speaker 1: Ah, and in the future to come one will say it…

Speaker 2: One said in the time of the Temple as a remembrance… only that piece stands until the redemption of captives one said.

Discussion: Joy in This Time vs. in the Future

Speaker 1: But in the future to come, my Torah is, in this time one makes oneself happy, and then it will be truly from where. What one sees one hasn’t seen, one has seen to show himself as if he left, to show the way of freedom. Then one will be truly happy, and then one won’t need to make…

Speaker 2: But yet to show is also in the time of redemption. It doesn’t say that it’s an obligation in the time of redemption.

Speaker 1: Then it won’t fall out to show, because it will be truly happy. When one is truly happy, one won’t show anything.

Speaker 2: Yes… okay, no problem.

“Bring Us to Other Festivals and Holidays” — What Does It Mean?

Speaker 1: What does it mean “that You have brought us from now and forever”? Does it mean that there will happen new holidays, or does it mean the same holidays new, as if more of the same holidays that we already have? I mean that the simple meaning of Scripture means the next holiday, it means even Shavuot. Like Shehecheyanu, one thanks the Almighty that I have arrived until here, and one asks the Almighty that the next holiday should already be a redemption. Like that. Next time it shouldn’t be anymore with the fake that you say, next time one will indeed make a Korban Pesach.

Speaker 2: Very good. One won’t eat the rabbinic maror, the rabbinic maror.

Speaker 1: So it could be that this is perhaps the matter that the first kiddush, it doesn’t make sense that there should be meat that reminds of Korban Pesach and one should make kiddush and one should now thank the Almighty. It’s a terrible thing.

Law 8 (Continued): Second Cup, Second Hand Washing, Yachatz, and Koreich

Second Cup

Speaker 1:

Means simply, next holiday should already be the redemption, like it says “next year in Jerusalem,” that sort of thing. Next time one should no longer be with that package, as you say. Next time one will indeed make a Korban Pesach.

One won’t eat the rabbinic maror, one will eat the Torah maror. It could be that this is perhaps the matter that the first kiddush… It doesn’t make sense that there should be meat that reminds of Korban Pesach and one should make a kiddush, and one should now thank the Almighty with a terrible pain. Why does one remove the table before the first kiddush? Because by the second kiddush there is already the meat! One speaks about the meat! “Ben Shofer,” look, I will, I’m already bringing the redemption, that one should after midnight be able to bring real meat.

Chassidic Torah? A little one waits with the good things, yes. No, I’m waiting for the table, for removing the table. And here one can already leave the table, because by this kiddush one indeed mentions the sacrifices. Okay. When one speaks this piece, one can already say that it’s Torah, because everything is Torah. This is indeed the work of the Haggadah, it’s Torah. Not weaker Torah than the Haggadah.

Speaker 2:

Yes, yes, true, true.

Speaker 1:

Okay. Let’s go further. Yes, we’re holding here in the Haggadah, holding here page… “Who creates the fruit of the vine,” not “on the vine,” he means to say “Who creates the fruit of the vine” from today. “And drinks the second cup,” yes. End of chapter 9. “Who creates the fruit of the vine and drinks the second cup,” yes.

Something comes to check the second cup. The second cup. Need to check, just a moment, need to check how much time it is. Ah, means until the Haggadah, one is holding already in the second half of the paragraph. Ah, means until… ah, only one is holding here, yes, yes, let’s have still sure time. Until section 4. Section 4? I’ll see what’s here? It’s still a law, “A place where they were accustomed to eat roasted,” other laws, yes.

Second Hand Washing

Speaker 1:

Okay, let’s see. “And after that he blesses on washing hands,” and washes his hands a second time. Second time. Why? It’s… where does it say here the source? Already, I need to check this. I didn’t reckon with this. My Torah was just thought out, because because because one says the things, ah yes, it’s still returning the table, the table lies yes there.

No, I thought earlier that perhaps not having the table has to do with washing hands, the things shouldn’t become impure, but not necessarily, because here it doesn’t say that one removes again the table before the second washing of hands. I thought earlier that perhaps removing the table has something to do with water washing hands, but it doesn’t look like that, because here is again blessing washing hands, and the table lies there.

Ah, one washes his hands a second time. Why must one indeed interrupt concentration during the reading of the Haggadah? This interruption of concentration was means from the cleanliness of the hands. And therefore two wafers, two matzot.

Yachatz — Breaking the Matzah

Why Two Matzot?

Speaker 1:

Why does it fall out? Ah, yes. Why does one push to the wafers? I mean because he wants to say here, first let’s take care of the lechem mishneh. “He divides one of them and places the broken piece inside the whole one.” Now, one reckons, he says that one does right still before the blessing. Yachatz, yes. We do yachatz before Maggid. He was stringent yachatz before Maggid. Interesting.

“And blesses Hamotzi lechem.” “He divides one of them and places the broken piece inside the whole one.” It’s interesting, when one has soft matzot I understand that it’s “inside the whole one,” as it’s turned, one takes it around with the whole one. But it doesn’t look like that, because “wafers” also means crackers, “wafers” means hard matzot, it’s not a problem.

“And blesses Hamotzi lechem from the earth.” “One doesn’t say the blessing of two loaves like other holidays, only on eating matzah one blessing. Just as bread of affliction is with a broken piece, so too here with a broken piece.”

But why two? Why should one… why what? Why… it’s indeed yes here a whole one also. Why doesn’t one say one is enough, that it should be the matter of affliction? Only half or… yes, if there is a matter of a broken piece both should be broken.

What is the answer? I don’t have an answer meanwhile. I want indeed bread of affliction, not the whole thing. But it’s… aha.

It could be also bread of affliction, meaning with that that one doesn’t add anything, it’s not rich matzah, only it’s bread of affliction. Why does the Torah fall out of affliction and broken piece? One wants perhaps with this also to hint the matter of Egypt or something? I say bread of affliction, meaning with that which one doesn’t put any spices, with that which it’s not rich matzah. No, only there is perhaps a matter that just as a poor person, that one should remember that one was poor, or one should remember that the matzah was in the way of affliction.

Koreich Matzah and Maror

Text of the Blessing — “Matzah” or “Matzot”?

Speaker 1:

And after that he wraps matzah and maror together and dips in charoset, one dips in the entire set one dips in charoset, or perhaps he means the maror from it? I don’t know, he doesn’t say clearly. And “Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us on eating matzah and marorim.” Why is matzot? One eats only one piece of matzah.

Second. Hello? Yes. Yes. Okay. The matter is like this, I’m going away from here, one isn’t busy with the Almighty, one is a whole day busy with service of Hashem. But about this indeed it says in the Torah the differences of laws. Very good. I’m going… yes, it’s already longer than the whole hour. Okay.

Speaker 2:

“Matzah and marorim” it says by me. You say by you it says “matzot and marorim”?

Speaker 1:

Ah, he says so to you nonsense. Okay, I know. It’s only that it should fit with the language of the verse “with matzot and marorim they shall eat it,” on eating matzot and marorim. Okay.

“They Would Eat Separately”

Speaker 1:

“They would eat separately.” One makes separate blessings on eating matzah, eating matzah by itself, maror by itself. Why does he say “they would eat”? Why is this an option? Yes, he says “he wraps matzah and maror.” That’s what one does. One doesn’t have to. That’s what it says here. I mean that you want… what do you want from the simple meaning? About looking in the commentators? He already found out. And here it says so that one doesn’t have to.

First of all, one should have said “they would eat,” not “they would eat.” One needs to write it in past tense, right? But it’s the same thing, it’s only a way of writing if that one did so.

One needs to understand the sugya there of koreich. It’s indeed a dispute of Hillel. The servants also ate separately.

Blessings on Chagigah and Pesach — In the Time of the Temple

“From the Meat of the Chagigah” Versus “From the Body of the Pesach”

Speaker 1:

So, first of all, “he blesses ‘Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us on eating the offering,’ and eats from the meat of the chagigah first. And after that he blesses ‘Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us on eating the Pesach,’ and eats from the body of the Pesach.” The order usually says the word “body of the Pesach.” It’s an interesting expression, “from the body of the Pesach lamb.” What is the difference? “Body” and “lamb”? I don’t know. Meat of the chagigah he says “from the meat,” and here he says “from the body of.” He doesn’t say “from the meat of the Pesach.”

“And the blessing of the Pesach doesn’t exempt that of the offering, and that of the offering doesn’t exempt that of the Pesach, because this is a commandment by itself and this is a commandment by itself.” Very good.

In This Time — Order of Eating

Matzah in Charoset

Speaker 1:

“In this time, when we don’t have a sacrifice, after he blesses ‘Hamotzi lechem,’ he returns and blesses ‘on eating matzah,’ and dips matzah in charoset and eats.” Interesting thing, everything one dips. “He returns and blesses ‘on eating maror,’ and dips maror in charoset and eats, and he shouldn’t leave it in the charoset, lest he nullify its taste.” This is the first time that one sees that it must have some taste, it must have sharpness. “And this is a commandment from the words of the Sages,” that it should be sharp. No, a maror. Ah, the whole matzah maror, aha. “And he returns and wraps matzah and maror and dips in charoset and eats them without a blessing, as a remembrance of the Temple.”

And After That He Continues with the Meal

Speaker 1:

“And after that he continues with the meal,” he means to say continues with the meal, yes. Continues means he is drawn in. He writes it like “he eats all that he wants to eat and drinks all that he wants to drink.” Like it says in the Haggadah, he lets himself enjoy. Ah, yes, enjoy. “He eats all that he wants to eat and drinks all that he wants to drink.”

Afikoman — Taste of the Meat of the Pesach / Matzah

Speaker 1:

And at the end he eats from the meat of the Pesach offering at least a kezayis (olive-sized portion), and he does not taste any other food after it at all. In this time one does instead of this eating a kezayis of matzah and does not taste anything after it. So that he should conclude his meal with the taste of the meat of the Pesach offering and the matzah, explicitly that their eating, what does it say here, that their eating is the mitzvah? Ah, their eating, the essence of the mitzvah of the night is the eating, the eating is a matzah or a Pesach offering. One wants to show with this that it is more important than the eating whatever he wants. Yes, he said earlier eating whatever he wants, but the essential mitzvah of the night is not your whatever, but the mitzvah itself, the eating a mitzvah. The mitzvah is this.

Third Cup, Fourth Cup, and Fifth Cup

Third Cup — Birkas HaMazon (Grace After Meals)

Speaker 1:

And after that he washes his hands, mayim acharonim (final waters), yes. And he recites Birkas HaMazon over the third cup and drinks it. After bentching (saying Grace After Meals).

Fourth Cup — Completion of Hallel

Speaker 1:

And after that he pours the fourth cup and completes on it the Hallel and says on it Birkas HaShir (the blessing of song), and it is, the Birkas HaShir is “Yehalelucha Hashem Elokeinu kol ma’asecha” (All Your works shall praise You, Lord our God) etc. which he will bring later. And he does not taste after this anything all night, except, he already said earlier one may not, and he however said that one drinks however the two cups. Ah, except for the two cups one does not drink anything except water.

Fifth Cup — Hallel HaGadol (Optional)

Speaker 1:

And he may pour a fifth cup and say on it Hallel HaGadol (the Great Hallel). That means he may. Ah, “yesh lo” (he may), he may, and say on it Hallel HaGadol. This is not the cup of Eliyahu (Elijah). And it is “Hodu LaHashem ki tov” (Give thanks to the Lord for He is good).

Speaker 2:

You mean not the cup of Eliyahu? This is not the one that one drinks. Now we’re talking about drinking a fifth cup.

Speaker 1:

Okay.

“Hodu LaHashem ki tov, until Al naharos Bavel” (By the rivers of Babylon). The entire chapter is here.

Speaker 2:

Ah, one chapter.

Speaker 1:

Yes. And all this is not an obligation like the four cups.

Law 8 (Conclusion): Fifth Cup, Hallel HaGadol, and the Cup of Eliyahu

Speaker 1:

But there are those who say yes, and they say on it Hallel HaGadol, and this is the cup of Eliyahu, and it is “Hodu LaHashem ki tov” until “Al naharos Bavel”. And all this is not an obligation like the four cups.

He says, And there are those who say to complete the Hallel in any place that he wants. The completion of Hallel is not such an important part of the seder that one should only be able to do it there, but one can do it anyway, even if it is not the place of the meal. One can go to the Rebbe’s tisch (table) and do the Hallel HaGadol according to halacha.

Speaker 2:

Okay, wonderful. Yasher koach (well done).