Laws of Chametz and Matzah, Chapter 7 (Auto Translated)

Laws of Chametz and Matzah Chapter 7: The Mitzvah of Recounting the Exodus from Egypt, Four Cups, and the Order of the Night

Introduction: The Rambam’s Order in the Laws of Chametz and Matzah

Speaker 1:

My teachers and rabbis, today we are learning Laws of Chametz and Matzah from the holy Rambam, Chapter 7. In Chapter 7 here we are going to learn the mitzvah of recounting the Exodus from Egypt, and more generally the night of the Seder, various mitzvot of the night of the Seder, such as the four cups and similar mitzvot of the night of the Seder.

Yes, we express praise and thanksgiving for the supporters of the shiur, and for the donors, and for the chief donors of our shiur in our beit midrash, Rabbi Yoel Halevi Wertzberger. And we are going to learn the mitzvot of recounting the Exodus from Egypt and the four cups.

Recounting the Exodus from Egypt is apparently, at least according to Chovot HaLevavot and others, everything is a branch of the great concept of gratitude. Yes. We will remember our friend who supports the shiur and makes it happen, and all other Jews who listen and make it go. But especially those who learn with us and those who sometimes send questions and messages, and this is very important, it’s even as important as money. Yes, question and answer is indeed part of the recounting.

The Rambam’s Division: Mitzvot vs. The Order of Performing the Mitzvot

So one must remember, the Rambam makes a very clear order in the law, I wrote something here in my Rambam. That is, usually when one learns like in the Shulchan Aruch, or the order of the Mishnah, it begins on the eve of Pesach, it’s inclusive, one goes through the whole order, and one learns according to the order. Now you taste the first cup, now the second cup, and so on.

But the Rambam very clearly divided the two things. That is, first he writes all the mitzvot, each mitzvah by itself, like the order of the 613 mitzvot, he goes, in the previous Chapter 6, he spoke about the mitzvah of eating matzah, and now he’s going to say the other mitzvot, there is Pesach, Korban Pesach, there is regarding the Exodus from Egypt, and the four cups, a rabbinic mitzvah, and only in Chapter 8 will he say how, what is the order, that’s why it’s called the Seder, what is the order in which one performs the mitzvot.

So, there are two different things, there are distinctions. So, here he says the essence of the law, and afterwards he will say the customs, certain additional details of laws that exist, but it’s not like the essence of the law, rather the order of performing mitzvot on the night of Pesach. Wonderful.

Yes. I generally think that in the Laws of Chametz and Matzah the Rambam is most organized according to the order. Because first one deals with the chametz that one has at home, thirty days when one already begins, before thirty days there is already a bit of an obligation of checking, and the last chapter ended with baking and even with not eating on the eve of Pesach.

In other laws he doesn’t, he doesn’t accompany you, not like the Shulchan Aruch which accompanies you. But even here not exactly, I say, but there is still a distinction. For example, he says the mitzvah of the Exodus from Egypt, and afterwards the mitzvah of the four cups, only in Chapter 8, does he say the actual order.

It’s true that… But generally, I’m saying the entire Laws of Chametz. True, true, that the mitzvah, the order of the mitzvah that he placed, is approximately less than the order of times would have begun with… even the first chapter already stood regarding not eating chametz on the eve of Pesach, afterwards regarding not eating chametz at all on Pesach, afterwards regarding baking matzah, true.

Law 1: The Torah Commandment to Recount the Miracles and Wonders

The Rambam’s Language

So, let’s learn Law 1: It is a positive Torah commandment, it’s a positive commandment from the Torah, to recount the miracles and wonders that were done to our forefathers in Egypt on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan.

When is the positive Torah commandment? The positive Torah commandment is that one should recount the miracles that happened to our forefathers in Egypt on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan. I mean essentially the miracles also happened on the night of the fifteenth, but not so, because miracles and wonders happened from the beginning with the plague of blood, all the miracles and wonders. The mitzvah is that on the night of the fifteenth one should recount the miracles and wonders.

The Source: “Remember This Day”

As it says, remember this day, it states in the verse remember this day that you went out from Egypt.

And from where do we know that “remember” means to mention with praise and in a manner of praise and thanksgiving? Perhaps one could have thought that “remember” means to remember, to do mitzvot that create remembrance, like “a remembrance between your eyes,” tefillin creates remembrance.

No, but we already know from another mitzvah that has similar language. By Shabbat it states remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it, and the Sages taught us that “remember” means mention it with words, with words, with the text of Kiddush where there one speaks of the mitzvah of Shabbat.

Innovation: “Remember” Means to Mention, Not Just to Remember

In other words, here too there is, the “remember” means to recount the miracles and wonders.

Yes, in other words, the “remember” that one says regarding Shabbat, it can mean two things. It can mean simply the plain meaning, literally the simple meaning of Scripture, that if someone asks what does “remember the Sabbath day” mean? Say it, it means remember to keep Shabbat. It means simply the positive commandment of the action of resting, of whatever Shabbat is. That is, it means remembering. And not only does it mean remembering according to the plain meaning, it simply means to do the mitzvot, it doesn’t mean that there’s an extra mitzvah to remember in one’s head about Shabbat.

The Sages come and say that “remember” doesn’t mean that it means to do the mitzvot, and not even that it means to remember, but it’s the other meaning. “Remember” means to mention, like being a mazkhir, like one says. Mazkhir is perhaps a language of prayer sometimes, like one says “to mention,” yes, “and we will mention Your name,” I mean there are such verses. This is something like another mention, I mean to say, “where I will mention My name.”

Discussion: To Whom Does One Speak? Praise and Thanksgiving vs. Telling Your Son

Here is actually a good point, because in other places it’s implied that one recounts to the children, like “and you shall tell your son.” No, that’s not yet that. But here it appears that the essence of “remember” is to speak to the Almighty as it were, to say words of praise and thanksgiving. Not necessarily to recount to the children, perhaps recounting because the child is a branch of this, but like Kiddush, to whom are you speaking in Kiddush? You’re speaking to the Almighty. You’re speaking to yourself, I mean, when you say it you remind yourself.

Yes, one must know. What you say about praise and thanksgiving, that’s still another thing I think, but being a mazkhir I mean one used to speak about that. Perhaps like the Rambam said regarding Shabbat, “to mention it through Kiddush,” something like that, praise and greatness, remember?

Yes. So the essential mitzvah, later one will learn “and you shall tell your son” as you say, is apparently another law, but it truly begins from the topic of, so at least the Ramban learns, from the topic of remembrance, which means mentioning. Mentioning, that is the…

The Teaching: “From Where Do We Know It’s on the Night of the Fifteenth?”

So the Ramban says further, “From where do we know it’s on the night of the fifteenth?” From where do we know that the mitzvah of recounting the miracles of the Exodus from Egypt is on the night of the fifteenth? That is, because in the verse “remember” it doesn’t say. Because it could mean, there are indeed opinions that one is obligated always. From where do we know this thing, the mitzvah of recounting, specifically on the night of Pesach?

The Torah teaches us, it states in the verse, “and you shall tell your son on that day saying, because of this God did for me when I went out from Egypt.” The Sages expounded, when should one recount? When is the “and you shall tell your son”? When is the “on that day”? The Sages say, “because of this.” “On that day” means the day when he goes to ask. No, “on that day” is not a certain day, but “on that day” when the day when the child goes to ask.

But later it states in the verse, “because of this” – about this. What does “because of this” mean? “Because of this” means about this matzah and maror. “At the time when matzah and maror are placed before you.” When is matzah and maror placed before you? Then is the obligation.

I mean the entire context of the verses is simply that the child will ask what is the meaning of this matzah and maror, when you go to do the mitzvot of Pesach, and the child will ask why are you doing the mitzvot of Pesach, and you will answer him “because of this God did for me.” That’s the whole… I don’t know if the specific word is “because of this,” or more the verses around and around.

Discussion: The Exposition in the Passover Haggadah

Yes, the language of the Gemara is something like, “because of this at the time when there is” – that is, in the Passover Haggadah it states, yes? Because of this at the time when there is – the Haggadah makes more steps, perhaps Rosh Chodesh, perhaps at night, perhaps later at night. “At the time when there is matzah and maror” he learns that it must be already at night, not “on that day,” one could think that it means during the day when one slaughters the Korban Pesach.

Discussion: Plain Meaning in “Because of This God Did for Me”

What is there simply the plain meaning without the exposition? What does “because of this God did for me” mean? There’s a problem in the verse, because the verse is stated backwards. The commentators debate what it means.

That is, there were commentators who said that “because of this” means – so says, I remember that the Ibn Ezra brings the two interpretations – either “because of this” means that because I should do the mitzvot the Almighty took me out of Egypt. Like it states many times that in order that you should do the mitzvot the Almighty took you out of Egypt. But it’s difficult in the context.

The Rashbam and others argue that one must simply read the verse backwards. One must say, “because of this” I do the mitzvah, because “God did for me.” Something like that, the verse didn’t write… something like that, “and the verse is reversed to expound it.” So learns the Rashbam, if I remember, more simply the plain meaning.

But that’s not… Again, one can, as you say, the teaching is from the entire context of the verses, not necessarily from that word. Because the verses indeed say, seven days you shall only eat matzah and so on. When it begins, the child will ask, why do we eat matzah? It doesn’t state here that the child will ask, that only states in the next section of “and it shall be when He brings you” and “and it shall be when your son asks you” about the firstborn.

But here it already states, “and you shall tell your son,” about what do I do the mitzvah of matzah and not eating chametz? “Because of this.” Yes, true. That’s the verse of the two things, right? “And you shall tell your son.” And when is matzah and maror placed before you? On the festival of Pesach, when you already have the mitzvah. Like we already learned in the previous chapter, that the mitzvah thereof is, at other times he eats matzah only if he wants. The first night is the mitzvah of eating matzah, and then is the mitzvah to say what it is. To recount the miracles and wonders.

“Even If He Has No Son, Even Great Sages Are Obligated”

The Rambam says, you shouldn’t think that it has to do with the son, like if someone will only learn the dry verse, will think that if you have a son you must say. No, even if he has no son.

And not only that, but even someone who… you shouldn’t think perhaps that sometimes the person is his own child, like the “inner child.” No, even great sages, even if he’s already a great sage, he doesn’t need anything from learning, to remind himself, because perhaps he doesn’t remember what the matzah is, you should remind yourself. No, even great sages, he knows all the expositions about matzah he already knows. They are obligated to recount the Exodus from Egypt it’s an obligation to say it, to say this, recount the miracles and wonders. To say.

It’s very good. It’s very good that the Rambam began with “remember.” “Remember” doesn’t mean like Shabbat, you do it every week, you already remember. You must be a mazkhir, not remember, but be a mazkhir. Two different types of language of mention or remembrance, yes? Mention, yes.

“And Whoever Lengthens in the Matters That Occurred and Happened, Behold This Is Praiseworthy”

The Rambam says, and whoever lengthens in the matters that occurred and happened, everyone who lengthens in the miracles that occurred and happened, the miracles that happened, behold this is praiseworthy, like it says in the Haggadah, and whoever increases in recounting the Exodus from Egypt, behold this is praiseworthy.

But the language of the Rambam is interesting, that one should recount the miracles that happened, not just say expositions or just say dialectics, but one should speak about what happened.

It could be, but I think that the meaning here of this piece is this is the measure. That is, the Rambam said that one must mention. How much must one speak about it? That is, the minimum is to say something, we went out from Egypt, one has already fulfilled. Like there is, the Rashba I think argued that one says in Kiddush “in remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt,” one has already fulfilled the essential law.

But there is a concept, that is, by Shabbat we didn’t see it, for example whoever lengthens, there is a concept to lengthen in a remembrance of “remember the Sabbath day,” one didn’t see such a thing. But by the Exodus from Egypt there is… there are Tannaim in how much one can expound in the act of creation. Because the Exodus from Egypt one should only the more

Law 1 (Continued) — Whoever Lengthens in the Matters That Occurred and Happened, Behold This Is Praiseworthy

Speaker 1:

But here is the measure, there is like a minimum, that is, but praiseworthy means that it’s a good thing, but also the obligation is perhaps, he doesn’t say what the minimum obligation is. But one sees apparently the order is there, there’s already an order, it states in the Haggadah, but whoever lengthens is praiseworthy, so that’s the essential laws.

Yes, but it appears that the lengthening shouldn’t be… For example, one can lengthen and speak in praises of the Holy One Blessed Be He in general, for example to say to thank, to praise, to glorify, and to beautify. But here it appears that the lengthening should be in the miracles and wonders that occurred. It can include about this there is in the order there is the increasing that perhaps in each plague there were multiple miracles. It’s a lengthening in what occurred and happened.

Yes, one isn’t certain if the inference is so necessary, but… What you say is true, because in the Rambam’s Haggadah, if one should learn, we are doubtful if one should learn it, but if one will learn the Rambam’s order of the Haggadah, in the Rambam’s Haggadah it doesn’t state the long language of Rabbi Akiva with Rabbi… what’s it called? The Beitar HaGelidi says, yes? The piece of… take each plague, sho… yes. It doesn’t state in his Haggadah, but there is on the side, what’s it called, the Maaseh Rokeach I think brings from Rabbi Avraham son of the Rambam, that his father didn’t write the Haggadah because he held that it’s not the text in a fundamental way that all Jews say. He used to say it yes that way, and he said that about this indeed stands an increaser, whoever increases, that’s what is meant. But not that this is also the wine, but other pieces that state in the Haggadah.

But it could be that lengthening is more like… besides what states. What already states in the Haggadah is already not any lengthening. Lengthening means like your own… bring your own… I want to say, if you understand so from me that this is like the measure, that minimum one doesn’t even have to say the Haggadah. It could be rabbinically one must say the Haggadah, about this there is a dispute of later authorities, whether there is an obligation to say the Haggadah at all, whether one can literally say only like the same question of the text of prayer essentially, whether there is a law of the text, whether perhaps the Men of the Great Assembly made for us that one must make the text. But the Rambam speaks here of the essential Torah law, and it hasn’t yet come to the text of the Haggadah.

It can also be that the Rambam means to say lengthening in matters, you can say lengthening to give thanks for the matters. It can also not be that the Rambam perhaps wanted something else. Once one says whoever increases to recount, it will make people come up with nice midrashim themselves, like adding things that didn’t exactly happen. The Rambam says, the lengthening must be on real things. It means, take what states in the sources that it indeed happened, and that one lengthens, that not that…

Speaker 2:

He says a good comment, I’m not sure it’s correct in this Rambam, that the language to recount, we translate to recount – to tell. That is, one recounts a story to someone, that is the language of recounting. If I say just to say, it would be speech. Here you have that many people say an inference, that one shouldn’t say the Exodus from Egypt, one must recount, whatever the distinction is.

Speaker 1:

But the truth is that it’s not correct, because in the language of the Sages in the Mishnah, to recount means to speak, like they were recounting one. Yes, recounting one means conversing. Even speaking alone can be called recounting. To recount is simply a language in Aramaic, appears for speech.

Speaker 2:

So why is it called recounting the Exodus from Egypt and not speaking about the Exodus from Egypt?

Speaker 1:

I don’t know if it’s exactly an inference. I read, yes, one must… here by Kiddush it states mention it with words, here it states mention it with recounting.

Speaker 2:

Right.

Speaker 1:

So in practice, in the law that the Rambam says is the same: there’s no obligation that one must do it in the manner of recounting, or… Later we will see yes such things, but apparently the essential law is… to recount simply means to speak about it.

It could be that one uses the word “recounting” because in the Torah one speaks yes, the essential concept of recounting states by recounting to the children, “so that you may recount in the ears of your son.” And then it is yes a language like we say “to recount.”

Speaker 2:

I don’t know, in the Torah, yes, one needs to know if in the Torah it’s more… is there indeed a distinction? One needs to know. One needs to check. The “lemaan tesaper”, “saper na”, yes, I don’t know. That is, according to the language of the Torah, whether there is a distinction between “lesaper” or “ledaber” or… it could be that “lesaper” is a language of more length.

Speaker 1:

It could be that from “lemaan tesaper” we learn the “kol hamarbeh”. Because the language of sipor, I mean in lashon hakodesh also, it’s very interesting, both in lashon hakodesh and in Yiddish, “counting” and “recounting” have a connection. “Lesaper” can mean to count, “lispor”, yes, “sefiros”, the same root. And “lesaper”, the same root, I mean the same three letters, “lesaper” can mean to recount. Also in Yiddish, we say “tseyln” and “dertseyln”. Also in English it’s “counting” and “recounting”. “Recount” means to tell a story.

It could be that as if when one recounts, one says, “and it was, and it was, and it was”. It’s like a list of things, like the ten plagues, such a thing. From this one can see that it should be with an order, as if. Yes, or with length, like this and then that. There are many parts. And a sipor is different from a dibur. A dibur can be one thing. Sipor is… and the word “sefer” is presumably also the same thing. When it gets written down it becomes a sefer.

Speaker 2:

Could be, I don’t know. I don’t know something the same… the same root, the same three letters, yes.

Halacha 2 — The Mitzvah to Inform the Children

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says further. Here the Rambam goes, he has already mentioned the essential mitzvah which is, to mention, as if to speak to the Almighty in a manner of praise and thanksgiving. Here he goes to speak about yes, what we call the telling for the children.

The Rambam says, “It is a mitzvah to inform the children” — it’s a mitzvah to inform the children of the miracles, the praises — “and even if they didn’t ask”, even if the children didn’t ask, “as it says ‘vehigadeta levincha'”. Very good. So the verse doesn’t say “vechi yishalcha”. “Ki yishalcha” appears in two other verses. This says “vehigadeta” without asking. There is a mitzvah of answering when he asks, but there is also a mitzvah of telling without asking, yes.

According to the Understanding of the Son

The Rambam says, how does this work? When one informs the children, it has to do with the children. It’s not whatever the father says, that he should say it in the presence of the children, rather he should say it actually to the child. “According to the understanding of the son he teaches him”, therefore he should adapt it to the child. That is, the part of the mitzvah of sipor yetzias Mitzrayim that has to do with the children is actually “about” the children, therefore one should say it according to the understanding of the child. It’s not enough that he says the same nusach of kiddush, he says it in the presence of his child or whatever, that doesn’t help. It has to do with the children.

One needs to know if this is d’oraisa, if this is me’akev. These are all the things that already appear in the Mishnah, according to the understanding of the son his father and the son. The Rambam didn’t count out the extra mitzvos, the same mitzvah, that it’s a mitzvah to inform means that this is the manner of the mitzvah.

Speaker 2:

Ah, this is the language “it is a mitzvah to inform his children.”

Speaker 1:

Very good, yes. It’s a mitzvah, it’s the way of fulfilling the mitzvah, could be. It’s a hiddur in the mitzvah, yes.

How? — The Rambam’s Example

How? The Rambam gives an example. If the child is small and he is a tipesh, if the child is small and he is a tipesh because he is small, or he is a tipesh not because of his age, but simply that he is a tipesh. After what I say, every katan is a tipesh, but when we don’t expect from him to be smarter, we call him a tipesh. Yes, it’s a kind of fact.

Speaker 2:

Very good.

Speaker 1:

Or tipesh, he remained a tipesh. He says to him, the father says to him, “My son, all of us were slaves. Like this maidservant or like this slave”. Here he says it as if one should speak to the child, the child understands when you tell him like so-and-so and so-and-so, he will understand. We were in Egypt, we were all slaves. “And on this night the Holy One Blessed Be He redeemed us”, the Almighty redeemed us, “and we went out to freedom”.

It’s interesting, because sometimes it says in the Torah, actually the previous parsha that we learned, when the Torah tells us to be nice to our slaves, and to free them, it says, because remember that you yourself were a slave in Egypt. Here you also pass over much compassion for the child. You tell the child, see? We were all such nebbachs like him. So there lies here something of a certain life.

Speaker 2:

But it’s missing, if there is no longer any slave, then it’s a problem.

Speaker 1:

No, perhaps then it’s better, because then we don’t think at all that it’s a normal thing that someone should have a slave. Then it’s sad, because why should that one be allowed? And here the Torah actually comes in and says, remember that you also were…

Speaker 2:

Yes, today it’s even more terrible for a person. You were kidnapped.

Speaker 1:

Okay, further. But what the Rambam says here is that one should explain to the children, at the level of the children.

And if there is a grown and wise son, he shouldn’t stop this way. The opposite of katan is tipesh. He doesn’t say, but here both need to be. It doesn’t say if, because there’s no such thing as a katan chacham, you understand? It says gadol vechacham. If he is very grown, and he has also merited to be great, the… he didn’t say, but what was in Egypt, and remained for all time. “Through Moshe Rabbeinu”, and he tells him the miracles that were done for us through Moshe Rabbeinu according to the understanding of the son.

The Innovation of “Through Moshe Rabbeinu”

It’s interesting that he inserts the words “through Moshe Rabbeinu”. He says that there is a condition in this that one should speak about Moshe Rabbeinu on the night of the Seder only for the great wise ones. For the small children one needs to say “the Holy One Blessed Be He”. For the grown children one explains that the Holy One Blessed Be He, it’s only a metaphor, that when one says the Holy One Blessed Be He one means Moshe Rabbeinu, one means through His messenger. There is a great secret in this, one could elaborate but not now.

But also according to the understanding of the son he adds that in this itself there are apparently levels, one can add more and understand the miracles, and less. But the point is that the gadol vechacham doesn’t get stories, he gets more like an understanding, a knowledge of what actually happened.

Speaker 2:

Very good.

Speaker 1:

By the katan he said “the Holy One Blessed Be He redeemed us”. This is not perhaps when one says “what happened to us”, this is an abstraction, this is a way of saying that the Almighty does everything, the Almighty also did that through His messenger Moshe with his miracles, yes.

The Rambam’s Own Formulation

It’s very interesting. The entire formulation the Rambam made himself. It says in the Mishnah “according to the understanding of the son”, the Gemara has some stories about Rav Nachman who said “ledorya avdu” about a slave. The Rambam presented himself the picture of what would be according to the understanding of the son.

Because although in our Haggadah there already stands an entire formulation, yes? We say the “corresponding to four sons”, we’re not really fulfilling in our Haggadah the according to the understanding of the son, because there is already a formulation for each one. It’s a question whether one is obligated extra from the Haggadah to explain for each one. It doesn’t say in the Rambam practically more than we say the Haggadah. Here he says the halacha, theoretically he explains this, could be one needs to do it outside of the Haggadah.

I think that the according to the understanding of the son could be actually what you mean. If the children are already grown enough to understand, that when I say “miracles that were done for us through Moshe Rabbeinu”…

Halacha 3 — Changes on the Night of the Seder So That the Children Will Ask

But if the child doesn’t have the understanding, we want that the child should have gratitude to the Almighty, not to some Moshe Rabbeinu who no longer lives. So if you understand that “miracles that were done through Moshe Rabbeinu” is “the Holy One Blessed Be He redeemed us”, say it that way “according to the understanding of the son”. Yes? Yes, yes. Very good. This I agree with. The “according to the understanding of the son” is more… yes, very good.

Further the Rambam says a third halacha, that the telling should be done in a manner of question and answer. The Rambam says, “And one needs to make a change on this night…” I mean that he would have said thus: He said earlier that even if the son doesn’t ask, he needs to speak with you. But there is a matter that should cause him to make questions. Ah, he should indeed ask. Ah, because when you answer a question, he hears much better.

The Psychological Foundation: Answers to Unasked Questions Are Not Heard

I mean that this is the simple explanation. Answers to unasked questions are not heard. It’s very much a secret, a basic secret for whoever gives a shiur like us. If one can make there, even a stupid question, one always asks Pesach, you made the trick yourself?

I tell you such, I give a shiur, I ask some foolish clumsy question, and I make the crowd, even if they plan, what is which parsha is this week? They say it’s a shalosh seudos Torah. If you ask someone, you know what this was rabbis who conducted thus? For the shalosh seudos Torah, one of the baalei batim who sits there asks which parsha goes this week. He will answer you, because he is indeed a great wise one and knows the parsha, you will see that he will listen better to the Torah.

I had a mashgiach who was truly an expert in this, and the bachur came to ask some foolish question, he said his shiur there. Instead of saying his shiur at the shiur, he said it as an answer to the question which had no connection to the shiur. Because this way the bachur felt, wow, I had such a good question, that he answered on it for three-quarters of an hour answer. It’s a clever thing.

And How Does One Change? What Changes Should One Make?

“And one needs to make a change on this night”, the night one should do things differently. It’s already essentially different, but I mean it’s interesting, because the matzah and maror itself is already enough a great change. It seems that one should make a greater change than this. One hasn’t yet eaten the matzah and maror, one wants indeed before the matzah.

True, true. But it’s a good question that you ask, you have a question on the question. Why does one need to make an extra change? The Torah says indeed that the child will ask about the matzah and maror, let’s say. There is indeed matzah.

The answer is, perhaps like everyone is, many times one can eat matzah, it’s not enough, sometimes it’s not enough noticeable. It’s very much Pesach, it’s very hard for a Jew to make a mistake that it’s Pesach. But perhaps sometimes hard. It’s in general, the child has already learned in cheder, and today it’s already more a ritual, it’s less authentic. It’s always been. It’s always been because one does it every year, true.

The Language of the Rambam: So That the Children Will See and Ask

Now, and one needs to make a change on this night so that the children will see and ask. And they will say, the child should ask, “What makes this night different from all other nights?” And then he has a good opportunity, until he sits down he says to them, to say, do you know why it’s different today? Because such and such happened and such and such was.

The Distinction Between “Happened” and “Was”

It’s interesting again the language, such and such happened and such and such was. To say this is what happened, he should answer them the reality of what happened. One needs to know what is the distinction of happened.

The Rambam wants to remove from the people who say lofty Torah thoughts, because today is Binah, and yesterday was Tiferes. No, they say what happened. On the contrary, happened is a language of arousal, it happens here in this world was, it’s a language of the name Havayah, one needs to show him the hand of God was.

Lesaper means that one should illuminate the exodus from Egypt, it’s all true. Something the Rambam wants here that it should be very connected to reality. And one needs to search in the Rambam what are the languages happened and was, because it’s a double language, perhaps he means with it.

The Details of Changes: Roasted Grain and Nuts

The Rambam says, And how does one change? What changes should one make? What changes have already given changes? One can come up with no, perhaps one can, but… He says, what Chazal said, one distributes to them roasted grain and nuts. One gives the children kelayos, which we already learned earlier, kelayos is roasted wheat. What one does in a guarded way is kosher and proper. And nuts are little nuts. And this is one thing that one does.

What will they ask? Why are you giving me the good things? Yes, children don’t get any nuts all year, not before the meal, whatever the order is.

So That They Don’t Sleep and Will Ask — The Gemara’s Reason

I mean that in another place it says that one gives it so they won’t fall asleep, so that they don’t sleep and will ask. Could be, could be that the nuts part is that they keep them up so they will see the change. When they are very tired, you can move tables and they won’t notice anything, they’ll doze. But you keep him up with the treats, with the snacks, and then one does the change.

I mean that the change is the removing the table from before them. The Rambam only says it that way. That you should see that the child should be awake, he should be in a good mood. But in the Gemara it says so that they don’t sleep and will ask.

I stand, I don’t say. Okay. Ah, he says yes? How do you say? No, night. In the Gemara stands the language. One gives kelayos and nuts so that they don’t sleep, won’t sleep, and will ask.

Removing the Table From Before Them and Snatching Matzah

So there is no that the change is the removing the table from before them before they eat. Or the snatching matzah. Perhaps the Rambam learned it thus. That all these things are changes. I don’t know. Because usually kelayos and nuts doesn’t come before the meal. If something I mean it’s more an end of meal thing, such a snack for the end of meal. Or one gives more. What’s a difference? Okay, one does it with a change.

And one removes the table from before them before they eat. One moves away the table before one eats, yes, because before one goes to eat one will indeed begin the Haggadah. Then one doesn’t have the entire prepared table. Like the old order that the table is a thing on which one eats. This was the order once, that one brings a table, one takes it away. Today on it are covered the plates, and one can bring stands instead… In short, the Rishonim already said that we don’t conduct the order of eating, so it’s not really relevant removing the table, and then it comes out indeed to cover the matzah, it’s something such symbolic things that no one grasps.

Further good. And snatching matzah from one another, also is something a custom that we don’t do, something one does a snatch. There are those who say that we are fulfilling it with the snatching of the afikoman. And similar to these things, such sorts of things that are changes, and this makes the child ask, and thus he answers.

Halacha 3 (Continued) — If He Has No Son, His Wife Asks Him

There is if he has no son, if a person doesn’t have… So this is until now we have learned how one should make the child ask him, because thus is lechatchila that a child asks, and then one is changed, and the father answers. But now we will learn a new thing: even if there is no one who should really ask, there is still always there one says the order we changed.

Mah Nishtana as an Order of Recitation

If he has no son, it means thus, according to the Rambam’s formulation for example, the Mah Nishtana doesn’t have a certain place in the Haggadah. Then when the child asks, then one answers we were slaves, then the Haggadah begins. But by us, yes, okay, the Rambam does have a formulation that begins we were slaves, whatever, not we were slaves, Mah Nishtana, Ha Lachma Anya.

But I say here, if he has no son, his wife asks him, is already more then when it’s the formulation to ask. If he has no wife, they ask one another, one asks the other “What makes this night different”. Even if they are all wise, even if they are wise and there isn’t really someone who asks because he doesn’t know, if he was alone, he asks himself, he asks himself “What makes this night different”. It becomes already more like an order of recitation here.

Digression: If He Has No Wife — The Importance of Friendship

I had last night a gathering for my group called Achim HaDerech, it’s a support group for young men who got divorced. I said that if one doesn’t have a wife, one needs to invest more in love of friends not to be alone. I mean, here one sees it, if he has no wife, one needs to ask. Asking oneself is something fake. I mean, two friends is also interesting like a game, they know indeed. It’s very interesting. But it’s not…

The Essential Mitzvah: Question and Answer

Chunk 3 Translation

It may be that it’s worthwhile to remember that this is the essence of the mitzvah (ikar hamitzvah), and when it’s relevant, it should be in the form of question and answer (sha’alah u’teshuvah). It’s not really a question and answer. When a person knows the answer, it’s called a false question.

I mean that according to what I spoke about earlier in psychology, it may be that when a person learns on his own, he also has a benefit that he should ask questions, even when he already knows the answer, but it’s still something. It’s not that it’s really asked. I’ve adopted a method (seder), it’s a method.

When a person learns Gemara alone, he also says “teyvuta” (refutation), and he says the teyvuta, and he doesn’t leave out the words. Even if he’s already learned the Gemara. The Rambam would perhaps hold – the Rambam made the Gemara without the questions. It doesn’t fit so well with the shitah (approach) of the Rambam.

Halacha 4 – Beginning with Disgrace and Ending with Praise

Okay, another law in the story of the Exodus from Egypt: “One must begin with disgrace and end with praise.” The story of the Exodus from Egypt has the part of suffering (tzaar), the trouble that the Jews were in, and the good, the salvation (yeshuah), that was. And the Rambam explains, perhaps this is the first one, perhaps it’s some kind of negative language, and the second contains the Name of Hashem, I don’t know what. No, perhaps the two types of disgrace and praise that we’re now going to speak about – the Rambam rules on both approaches (shitot).

How Does One Begin and Tell? – The First Disgrace: Idolatry

“How does one begin and tell? He begins with the story, ‘In the beginning our fathers were,'” when? “In the days of Terach and before him,” for many years and many generations our forefathers were “deniers (kofrim), and went astray after vanity (hevel), and pursued idolatry (avodah zarah).”

Three Terms for Idolatry

That is, they were deniers, they didn’t believe in the Almighty. They went astray after vanity, and pursued idolatry. Very interesting, what are the three terms? These are all terms that appear in the verses about idolatry.

But I can understand, “going astray after vanity” and “pursuing idolatry” fits with the Rambam’s explanation in Hilchot Avodah Zarah of how idolatry came about. It began with an error, and they thought that the celestial forces (gormei hashamayim) have power.

Why Does the Rambam Begin with “Deniers”?

But it’s interesting that he begins with “deniers” (kofrim). Do you know why? Because the Rambam taught in Hilchot Avodah Zarah that the main problem with idolatry is that one doesn’t know about God at all. Because idolatry holds that the sun is a god, so it comes out that the true God who is before the heavens… that the main problem with idolatry is the denial (kefirah) within it.

Although seemingly one could ask a question, what does denial have to do with idolatry? The answer is, every idolatry according to the Rambam is denial, because if you hold that the sun is a god, that displaces the Almighty. The Almighty says “other gods whom they did not know” (elohim acherim asher lo yeda’um), the ones that aren’t real.

The Three Levels of Idolatry According to the Rambam

And “going astray after vanity” is… So “deniers” means that he doesn’t know the Ein Sof (Infinite One), he doesn’t know God. “Going astray after vanity,” therefore he has an error, as you say very well, the great error that the generation of Enosh made, that they go after vanity (hevel), as the language appears in the verse in Samuel, yes, something like that, “do not go,” the prophet Samuel says to the Jews, “after vanity and futility which cannot benefit or save” (hevel vehatohu asher lo yo’ilu velo yatzilu), something like that language. That’s the… the… the… as you say, the sorcery and all those things.

“And pursuing idolatry,” that’s already later, that’s already when they began building temples (heichalot). Idolatry is an outgrowth of that, that is idolatry. As you say, it also says there, they… “pursuing idolatry” means all kinds of knowledge of building temples and making various…

Halacha 7 (Continued) – And Ending with the True Religion

Speaker 1:

Yes, something like that, “do not delay Samuel,” but as he says to the Jews, “vanity and vanity will not benefit or save,” something like that language. That’s the… you say the stars and all those things.

But besides idolatry, that’s later, when they began building temples. Idolatry is a translation of that, that is idolatry. I say, it also says there, idolatry means all kinds of ideas of building temples, of customs.

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Speaker 1:

It also says there “from Terach and before him,” that initially idolaters means for many generations.

Speaker 2:

Yes, that is unlike the Kuzari, where the Kuzari said that Adam Harishon (the first man) served the Almighty, and Noah continued to serve the Almighty, so the Kuzari became a bit stuck – where did the error of idolatry come from? He must say that the time was exceptionally long (zman mishtarech hayah yotzei min haklal).

But the Rambam says “in the days of Enosh” (bimei Enosh).

Speaker 1:

The Kuzari doesn’t know about the… No, the Kuzari doesn’t hold…

Speaker 2:

Okay, I don’t want to elaborate.

Discussion: When Did Idolatry Begin – Rambam vs. Kuzari

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says “in the days of Enosh,” but I’m afraid that the Rambam means “in the days of Adam,” because it doesn’t say that it became until some point the error. It never says properly in the Rambam. In short, one must be very precise. It may be that the Rambam holds that in the days of Enosh, truly, even in the days of Adam Harishon there were idolaters.

I have a proof because Adam Harishon brought sacrifices (korbanot), and the Rambam said that sacrifices began with idolatry. This is the Ramban’s great question on the Rambam, how can the Rambam say that sacrifices are only against idolatry? Adam Harishon brought sacrifices, Cain and Abel – it explicitly says in the Torah that he brought sacrifices.

One can answer that the Rambam truly held that it began with idolatry.

Speaker 2:

No, it’s the opposite, because it’s very hard to discover the Almighty.

Speaker 1:

Okay, in short, let’s not delve into this. Whoever wants can learn my book on the Rambam’s Haggadah, and will see. Very good.

“And Ending with the True Religion” – Drawing Close to the Unity of God

Speaker 1:

“And ending with the true religion” (umeisayim bedat ha’emet). That is, this is the disgrace. “And ending” is with the true religion, when the Jews received the true religion. “The Holy One, blessed be He, drew us close to Him,” the Almighty brought us close “to Him,” which means to His knowledge (liyediato), to know that there is only one Creator. “To separate us from the deniers,” “and He separated us from those who go astray,” not to run after vanity and not to wander. “And He brought us close to His unity” (vekeirvanu leyichudo), to the unity of God (yichud Hashem), that there is only one Creator, there is only one Creator.

Because the Rambam taught further in Avodah Zarah that besides the fact that there were errors, one of the innovations (chidushim) of Abraham our father and afterwards Moses our teacher was that one serves, one unifies in service (meyached ba’avodah). That is, that one makes a special service, although there’s perhaps a question on this – how can one serve the Almighty? The Almighty is above physicality and so on, but the intention of “to His unity” (leyichudo) simply means that one makes service of God (avodat Hashem) specifically for the Almighty, and through this one should remember precisely the one God who existed before all the sun and all things.

Why Begin with Disgrace – “There Is No Light Except That Which Emerges from Darkness”

Speaker 1:

This is one of the things that happened (dvarim she’iru veshehayah), right? Why must one begin with disgrace? Perhaps because the essence is the praise, but the joy only comes out as “there is no light except that which emerges from darkness” (leit nehora ela denafik migo chashuka). The joy with the true knowledge (da’at ha’emet) is only because it wasn’t always so. If this had always been the standard, the joy isn’t so great. People can wander for many years in idolatry, therefore we rejoice with the true knowledge that we have.

This is built… Let us explain. It can also be that it’s built on the story, on the verse of Rabbi Yosef. One sees that in a story – you asked earlier a question and answer – every story, in order to learn a story, one goes to narrative theory, how one learns to write fiction, to write stories, one learns that a story must have a problem, right? A conflict it’s called, a problem, and one solves the problem. Without that there’s no story.

Halacha 7 (Continued) – The Second Part: We Were Slaves

“And So He Begins and Informs That We Were Slaves”

Speaker 1:

“And so, he begins and informs, he begins to inform that we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt,” meaning afterwards. “And so,” two things. There are like two stories. One story is the spiritual part, like the idolatry with the end of the true knowledge, and afterwards there’s the more practical one.

This is a dispute (machloket) in the Gemara between Rav and Shmuel, what constitutes praise. Rav said “initially idolaters,” and Shmuel said “we were slaves,” and the Gemara says that Rav Papa said that one does both. So the Rambam puts in here both.

“And so, that we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, and all the evil that he did to us.” That is, all the bad things that the Egyptians did to us, “and the Egyptians treated us badly” (vayare’u otanu hamitzrim), this is like “and the Egyptians treated us badly.” “And ending with the miracles and wonders that were done for us in our freedom,” one ends with the miracles and wonders that the Almighty did for us, and with the freedom that we merited.

Discussion: Two Stories – Are They Connected?

Speaker 2:

It’s already interesting, because the “beginning with disgrace” that he said about idolatry versus true knowledge, the salvation already began in the days of Abraham, yes, in the days of Abraham. Perhaps the peak was in the days of Moses when there was a Torah. That in the time of Egypt they forgot again the unity of God (yichud Hashem), and Moses awakened it again.

Speaker 1:

Aha.

Speaker 2:

And here however, “Arami oved avi” (An Aramean tried to destroy my father), also speaks apparently again about such an exile that the Jews went through until they were helped. Both were more than one generation. It was from Adam or Enosh until Abraham’s troubles, and by Abraham it became better. And afterwards, if “Arami oved avi” means Jacob, or it means Abraham.

Speaker 1:

Okay.

Speaker 2:

Okay. How does one fulfill “beginning with disgrace and ending with praise”? One must use the verses of “Arami oved avi,” which speaks about the story of the Exodus from Egypt, he sends with the whole portion (parshah), where it says there that afterwards the Almighty chose the Jews from the Rama, “whoever expands and elaborates in expounding this portion” (kol hamosif uma’arich bidrash parashah zo). Whoever elaborates in expounding that portion, which in that portion states the emergence from disgrace to praise, “behold he is praiseworthy” (harei zeh meshubach).

It’s very interesting that there’s this law explicitly to tell and to elaborate on their disgrace and so on. And afterwards practically, how does one do it through saying the portion from Parashat Ki Tavo, until “and Hashem brought us out,” there the story appears. And here one can further fulfill “whoever expands.” There is expanding, when one says only the verses themselves, one has only said the basic, and if one expounds the portion, and the more one expounds, “behold he is praiseworthy.”

So there are two kinds of stories, and by both there’s a concept of elaborating and expounding.

Discussion: “She’iru Veshehayah” vs. “Bidrash Parashah Zo”

Speaker 2:

It’s interesting, because earlier he said “she’iru veshehayah” (things that happened), here he says “bidrash parashah zo” (in expounding this portion), here it seems that there’s a place for… Perhaps the part… By the portion it says basically what happened. That’s the… that’s the… that’s the… “in things that happened” (bidvarim she’iru) through telling the story. That’s what he does in our Haggadah. What does the Haggadah do? Every verse he brings more verses, and one adds details that were in the…

I thought perhaps that on the part of idolatry versus true knowledge, the emphasis on “she’iru veshehayah” isn’t so strong, because there one can think about the philosophy of how the Jews came to understand the true knowledge. That’s… yes, at least for the wise men (chachamim).

Speaker 1:

True, it could be. It says there, there the emphasis on “she’iru veshehayah” isn’t so strong. One must understand that in the portion it doesn’t say that one mustn’t. One must add extra. We bring another verse of salvation in order to do this. It’s not… “Arami oved avi,” one can squeeze in “Arami oved avi,” one learns that it means the service of our father, one can squeeze something in. But it’s not so simple to put it in there. It mainly says the second thing.

Speaker 2:

It’s interesting, he doesn’t say that the two things are also connected. As if as long as they didn’t have the true knowledge they were slaves, the two things are connected. But it seems like two stories that run one beside the other.

Speaker 1:

But also, as long as they were still in Egypt they were immersed in idolatry (sheku’in ba’avodah zarah), and when they were redeemed they were also redeemed from a spiritual perspective. Both things happened simultaneously.

Speaker 2:

One calls it so, spiritual redemption (geulah ruchanit), you can call it, but he puts it on two other things. It could be it’s truly two things. That is, there’s the practical part, and there’s the true knowledge, but it happened at the same time. But it’s not simple that… According to the exposition (al pi derash) one says so, there’s the physical redemption (geulah begashmiyut), the spiritual redemption. The Rambam doesn’t say such language, but he says one after the other, because both is the same storyline so.

Speaker 1:

Yes, that’s the week. Yes.

Halacha 8 – Three Things: Pesach, Matzah, Maror

“Whoever Did Not Say These Three Things”

Speaker 1:

Already, says the Rambam, until now we’ve spoken about embellishments (hidurim) or laws in the story of the Exodus from Egypt. Now he’s going to say the most basic, what must one say?

Speaker 2:

I don’t know if it’s the most basic. “Lo yatza yedei chovato” (he hasn’t fulfilled his obligation) doesn’t mean truly. I’m quite sure it means basically that one must say it.

The Ritva brings the Rishonim who say that “lo yatza yedei chovato” doesn’t mean that one hasn’t fulfilled.

Speaker 1:

Ah, one can learn “lo yatza yedei chovato” means not from the Seder, or one can learn “lo yatza yedei chovato” from everything. Whoever didn’t do the law hasn’t fulfilled the law. It won’t mean that if you didn’t say it, okay, did you say other reasons for the Exodus from Egypt? No, you haven’t fulfilled this. It’s not clear what’s going on here.

One can learn classes on the Haggadah, all the interpretations of what it means. The Rambam doesn’t say what it means. He brings basically the language of the Mishnah. One can’t be precise from the Rambam at all, because he brings basically what it says in the Mishnah.

Speaker 1:

Says the Rambam, “Whoever did not say these three things on the night of the fifteenth has not fulfilled.” Whoever didn’t do well enough the mitzvah of the night of the Seder, he hasn’t begun the law. “And these are: Pesach, matzah, maror,” meaning, here there’s a new law. Besides that one should do it, what is there? Everything is that one should say the story of the Exodus from Egypt about the mitzvot. One should say the mitzvah and the story about the mitzvah.

The Concept of Saying the Story About the Mitzvot – Reasons for the Commandments

Speaker 1:

One can interpret, one must explain the reasons for the commandments (ta’amei hamitzvot). It’s also a kind of question and answer, as if the mitzvah is the question, and the answer to it is the answer. It’s also a form of question, because a question always is something that arouses the answer.

Speaker 2:

I hear, but that’s only, the thing arouses the answer. It’s not a mitzvah to squeeze everything into the same thing. There’s one thing of question and answer. There’s another thing, as Rabbi Bachya says, that it’s a great benefit for us to know the reasons for the commandments.

The Rambam according to his approach that knowledge of the reasons for the commandments is the love of God (ahavat Hashem). This is the Rambam’s approach, for the Rambam this was, I don’t know, but for Rabbi Bachya this was.

Pesach – Because God Passed Over

Speaker 1:

He says, Pesach, one must mention Pesach, matzah and maror, and on each of them the reason for the commandment, the story behind it. Pesach is called so “because God passed over the houses of our fathers in Egypt.” That’s why it’s called the Pesach offering (korban Pesach), that the Almighty passed over, “as it is said, ‘And you shall say, It is the sacrifice of Hashem’s Pesach,'” it says there further “because He passed over.”

Speaker 2:

Not “to Hashem” but what does it say “who passed over the houses of the children of Israel”?

Speaker 1:

That is, this is an interpretation of the verse. That it says “when your children say to you, What is this service to you,” you will say this is a Pesach. And why is it called Pesach? “Because He passed over the houses of the children of Israel.” So the piece about Pesach is literally a Pesach. And here it also says literally question and answer, it says “what is this service to you.” But the Rambam doesn’t say it on that part, it’s not part of that question and answer. “Mah nishtanah” (What is different) one doesn’t say this, so extra one must say this.

Maror – Because the Egyptians Embittered

Speaker 1:

“Maror because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our fathers in Egypt.” Why do we eat maror?

Maror – “Because the Egyptians Embittered the Lives of Our Fathers in Egypt”

Speaker 1:

That is, this is an interpretation of the verse, that it says “when your children say to you, What is this service,” you will say this is a Pesach, and why is it called Pesach? Because “He passed over the houses of the children of Israel.” So the piece about Pesach is literally a Pesach, it doesn’t say question and answer. And here it also says literally question and answer, it says “what is this service to you.” But the Rambam doesn’t say it on that part, it’s not part of that question and answer. Doesn’t mean that there one doesn’t say this, so extra one must say this.

“Maror – because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egypt”

“Marorim al shem shemareru haMitzrim es chayei avoseinu b’Mitzrayim” – Why do we eat maror? Because maror is a term from bitterness, and we recount the suffering of “mareru haMitzrim es chayei avoseinu b’Mitzrayim” (the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egypt). Yes, but this is very interesting. This doesn’t appear in the verse. What is the source that maror has to do with this? It’s a midrash from the Mishnah of Rabbi Gamliel.

I don’t know if marorim means a specific vegetable. It appears in the Gemara that marorim has other names. And we call them marorim just as we call it Pesach. Pesach isn’t the name of a type of korban, Pesach means “pasach HaKadosh Baruch Hu” (the Holy One, blessed be He, passed over). When the Almighty told the Jews in Egypt that you should make a Pesach, He said, later there will be a miracle called Pesach, and the meat you should already call by the name of the miracle that will happen.

I’m saying marorim is also not necessarily that marorim is a type… like certain herbs that are called marorim?

Speaker 2:

Yes, certainly. Not a specific one, a bunch are called marorim. All vegetables are called marorim al shem…

Speaker 1:

No, we don’t call them al shem that. We call them that all year long. It’s not one vegetable, it’s bitter herbs. But this is truly a derash. The marorim is… the reason why we place maror is for the matter to remember “shemareru haMitzrim es chayei avoseinu b’Mitzrayim”.

Matzah – “al shem shenig’alu”

And matzah is… to remember or to recall the matter “al shem shenig’alu” (because they were redeemed) that the Jews were redeemed from Egypt. But this, the word matzah doesn’t have… it’s not a term of redemption, it’s something else, it’s the reason for it. This is that they went out b’chipazon (in haste). Apparently that’s what is meant.

I’m saying like the Rambam, when the Rambam says “al shem,” it doesn’t mean… shem doesn’t mean about, about, yes. It’s not a matter of… it’s not a matter of language, of linguistic, and al shem also. Yes. Not in the names. Yes.

Halacha 7 (end) – “And all these things are called Haggadah”

The Rambam brings out. The Rambam says: “U’dvarim eilu kulam”, all these things that have been mentioned until now, “hen hen hanikra’in Haggadah”. This is called in the language of Chazal “Haggadah.”

Discussion: What does “Haggadah” mean?

Speaker 2:

Very good. If you hear someone speak a Haggadah, Haggadah means the way how one fulfills all these things: the remembrance, the Haggadah to the son, the question and answer, beginning with disgrace, the three things. The totality of all these things is called a Haggadah. You see here also that sippur and Haggadah are borrowed terms, they mean the same thing. That’s how it appears here, yes.

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says further… Haggadah means telling. Haggadah in the Torah is different from amirah. Haggadah is always when one says something to someone who didn’t yet know. One can’t say “lamah lo higadta li?” – why didn’t you tell me? But you see “vayaged Hashem el Moshe” (and Hashem told Moshe). It’s not so, it’s not clear, it’s not the same thing as the language of amirah. I don’t know if this is the distinction, but I think it’s different.

Speaker 2:

Okay. It says “v’hagadta lahem es brisi” (and you shall tell them My covenant). More laws, what?

Speaker 1:

Yes, okay. “Ki yagid lahem asher ya’asu” (for he will tell them what they should do). Yes, okay.

Halacha 7 (continued) – “In every generation a person must show himself as if he himself went out now from the bondage of Egypt”

Speaker 2:

The Rambam says further, more laws in sippur yetzias Mitzrayim. The Rambam says, “B’chol dor vador” – this is apparently the introduction to the topic of derech cheirus. The Rambam is going to say one must do cheirus. He begins with the obligation. I would perhaps say it like this, that besides the telling one should also act it, one should do actions that show it, with deeds, not just with words.

Speaker 1:

Yes, because in our Haggadah there is a language “lir’os es atzmo” (to see himself), but the Rambam doesn’t say so. The Rambam says “l’har’os es atzmo k’ilu hu yatza atah mishibud Mitzrayim” (to show himself as if he himself went out now from the bondage of Egypt). But here the point is the word “atah” (now), that a person should always show not that it’s some old story, but “k’ilu atzmo yatza atah” (as if he himself went out now). How? “Shene’emar v’osanu hotzi misham” (as it says “and us He took out from there”). The language “v’osanu” (and us) literally doesn’t mean our grandfathers, but “v’osanu” (and us).

He says, “V’al davar zeh tzivah baTorah ‘v’zacharta ki eved hayisa'” (and regarding this matter He commanded in the Torah “and you shall remember that you were a slave”), not that you were slaves back then, but “eved hayisa” (you were a slave), you yourself were. “Avadim hayinu” (we were slaves) was secondary, the father who tells, but not that it was once upon a time, but something that is relevant to you. “Lomar k’ilu atah b’atzmecha hayisa eved v’yatzasa l’cheirus v’nifdeisa” (to say as if you yourself were a slave and went out to freedom and were redeemed).

Discussion: What is the meaning of “k’ilu” (as if)?

Speaker 2:

What is the meaning of this? It’s not so in reality.

Speaker 1:

Very good, you should remember k’ilu. The answer is probably the “ad l’hotzi,” because essentially it could have continued for many generations. There are people who remain slaves for many generations. This is the mitzvah.

Halacha 7 (continued) – “Therefore when they feast on this night they must eat and drink in a manner of reclining, the way of freedom”

Therefore, consequently, what does one do about this? Lfikach, k’sheso’adin balailah hazeh tzarich le’echol v’lishtot b’ofen shehu meisav derech cheirus (therefore, when they feast on this night they must eat and drink in a manner that he reclines the way of freedom), he should eat and drink because he sits reclined, like derech cheirus, like a ben chorin (free person) sits reclined, not that he eats something on a small bench, but he sits comfortably.

Discussion: Haseivah and simchah

Speaker 2:

What does it mean he rejoices? I mean that when someone tells an old story, he tells it. When someone actually rejoices, he doesn’t tell, but you see it in his body language, you truly see that he’s rejoicing. He says here, this shows him simchah with the way how you sit. He doesn’t say anything about simchah, he says that one must… eating the story is the width. He doesn’t say that this is so that one should rejoice more with the story. Maybe, I mean that it’s the opposite. It’s not that it’s an old story, but it’s something that is… He doesn’t say, the whole thing that this is very Chassidic, it’s too Chassidic for him. He doesn’t agree.

And also the lfikach, it fits very well. I’m saying, when someone tells something old, he tells it with external speech. Unlike when it’s something fresh, you see it on him. One doesn’t need to say anything.

Speaker 1:

No, it’s the other way around. He must sit b’derech cheirus in order to show k’ilu he himself went out, not in order to tell. The telling is another thing. I don’t know what I have against this. I don’t have it in this manner. It’s too many Chassidic torahs. One can’t say all Chassidic torahs. It’s a fake life.

Discussion: Everything is “k’ilu”

Everything is k’ilu. Perhaps you’ll tell me one thing in Judaism that isn’t k’ilu? Everything is k’ilu. K’ilu yatzarnu misham, k’ilu today. Perhaps you’ll tell me one Yom Tov where we’ll do for this not k’ilu. When will there be the not k’ilu, not k’ilu ovdei zarah, not k’ilu yatza miMitzrayim, not k’ilu achal kugel?

Speaker 2:

Learn it. When a tragedy happens, one must truly make a ta’anis (fast) then. When a simchah happens, I don’t know if there’s a law of a seudah seudah, but one must say the blessing she’asah nes bamakom hazeh, not k’ilu.

And then when a person himself had a miracle, we don’t say how he should behave, but you’ll see on him a simchah, he’ll truly be happy that he had a miracle.

Speaker 1:

Not certain. I don’t believe in these spontaneous things. People need us to do everything say. Would you want?

Speaker 2:

There are laws. Yes there are laws of expressions, there is either of bringing todah, or of birkas hagomel. There are laws.

Speaker 1:

Okay, anyways, what must one do?

Four Cups

Another thing, first of all, one must sit derech haseivah. And secondly, one must do so. Right. V’chol echad v’echad bein anashim bein nashim chayav or chayavim lishtot balailah hazeh arba kosos shel yayin, ein pochasin mehem (and each and every one, whether men or women, is obligated to drink on this night four cups of wine, not less than them). Not less than four cups.

The Rambam says, from this emerges a law in the laws of tzedakah, that usually one gives tzedakah for the poor, one gives only what they need importantly for eating. One doesn’t give mere luxuries. But since we said that there’s an obligation to drink four cups, it’s also a law on the gabbai tzedakah. That even an ani hamisparneis min hatzedakah, lo yifchasu lo (even a poor person who is supported by charity, they should not give him less), the one who distributes the tzedakah should not give him less than four cups. Usually at a meal one will give one cup, I don’t know how important it is.

The Rambam says, how much is the measure of cups? He says, shi’ur kol kos mehem hu revi’is (the measure of each cup from them is a revi’is). That means, a cup doesn’t mean a glass, a cup means a measure of a revi’is.

Laws of Haseivah – who must, who doesn’t

And now the Rambam is going to explain, what he said that he should sit reclined derech cheirus, he’s going to elaborate on this who must always be reclined derech cheirus.

The Rambam says, v’afilu ani shebeYisrael (and even a poor person in Israel), also lo yochal ad sheyaseiv (should not eat until he reclines), he should not eat until he sits reclined.

Discussion: Why does a poor person need haseivah?

Speaker 2:

It’s set up only for whom it fits, he has this type of bench, and it makes sense for him. Do it, it’s such a mitzvah, it’s not… It’s not clear what the Mishnah wants. Why can’t a poor person make a seivah? He has the reclined bench. He also has reclined matzah. What do they want to do? One must eat matzah, one must have seivah. It’s not clear to me what the halacha is. Perhaps it means further that the gabbai tzedakah must buy a cushion.

Speaker 1:

A cushion? I don’t understand. And also what is the language “ad sheya’aseh”? It’s an interesting language.

Speaker 2:

It was a different thing, that the poor person is unfortunately hungry, he wants to grab. Yes, immediately when they bring him the food he wants to grab it already. He says, no. Do it with the whole ceremony, make yourself comfortable. There are those who aren’t at all with this, ani es k’machol bendes eh, they bring him the four cups, he’ll drink all four immediately. He says, no, sit down and be a deed.

A woman doesn’t need haseivah

Speaker 1:

Further, but who doesn’t need? The Rambam says, ishah einah tzrichah asah (a woman doesn’t need to do), a woman doesn’t need. Haseivah, because this isn’t the style. The style is, you read sometimes, a woman sits more with a matter of submission next to the husband, the husband is the one who sits with haseivah. But im ishah chashuvah (if she is an important woman), if she is an important woman who does have the freedom, then yes tzrichah haseivah (she needs haseivah).

Further, I think now I understand a bit better the ani shebeYisrael. The ani shebeYisrael is simply like the ishah who doesn’t have haseivah, yes? You see here that haseivah is about importance. He doesn’t have any importance, he’s a slave in his own home. But more halachically he’s like yiras rabo.

It says in the Rama, “V’nashim shelanu kulan chashuvos” (and our women are all important). This is for the guidance for the young men, you should know, all our women are important. In Ashkenaz. In Sepharad, you know what a Sephardi is?

Speaker 2:

I’m not saying. I had a wedding with a Sephardi, one can’t know.

A son with his father, a student before his teacher

Speaker 1:

The Rama says further, “U’ven etzel aviv o hashamash bifnei rabo” (and a son with his father or the attendant before his teacher), a son who sits by his father or the attendant before his teacher, he’s also a bit similar like a woman who is submissive, but no, it’s not such a type of submission, and “yes tzrichin haseivah” (they need haseivah). “Aval talmid bifnei rabo eino meisav” (but a student before his teacher doesn’t recline). Then when shamash bifnei rabo is a practical submission, he’s dependent on the rav, but when it’s a matter of kavod haTorah, the reason why he submits himself is because of kavod haTorah, kavod rabo – we don’t mean here rabo who teaches him carpentry, yes? Like in other places one also calls it bifnei rabo, because this is more like shamash bifnei rabo. Shamash bifnei rabo doesn’t mean before his rabbi, shamash means a servant, and the rav means here ba’al habayis. Generally, the term rav means master. But a talmid, when the relationship between them is because he learns Torah with him,

Halacha 8: Laws of Haseivah (continued) — on which side one sits

The Rambam’s words: V’hasivas yamin einah haseivah. V’chen hameisav al orfo o al panav ein zo haseivah.

Speaker 1: Haseivah means that one sits reclined on the left side, and haseivah one sits more more more if one lies on the right side, you haven’t received. If you lie on the left today, you can use the right side to drink.

The Rambam says further, v’chen, hama’aseh al panav, one who lies on his back or on his front, also ein zeh asiyus, not specifically to the side.

When does one need haseivah?

The Rambam’s words: V’eimasai tzarich haseivah? Bish’as achilas k’zayis matzah u’vishtias arba kosos ha’eilu. U’sh’ar achilaso u’shtiyaso im heisav harei zeh meshubach.

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, v’ein masai tzarich asiyus, at which part of leil haSeder is the matter of asiyus important? The Rambam says, bish’as achilas k’zayis matzah u’vishtias arba kosos ha’eilu, at the two mitzvos. Achilah is a mitzvah of…

Speaker 2: Yes, but there’s the eating of maror, but not maror.

Speaker 1: He says one doesn’t need to. Look, the Rambam says, vi she’er hachiyuso shetehiyesu, all the other that one eats and drinks at leil haSeder, im hosif harei zeh meshubach, it’s a good thing. It’s not a tzarich. We already have here a third or fourth harei zeh meshubach on leil haSeder. It’s very easy to become a meshubach if one should yes eat the rest of the seudah ber se’ud also.

Perhaps even the Haggadah…

Speaker 2: Ah, but it’s not. It says chalasah u’shtiyah, it doesn’t say about the Haggadah.

Speaker 1: Yes. It could be bish’ah shi’as matzah u’maror, it’s connected.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Halacha 9: Laws of the Four Cups — mixing and measures

Mixing the wine

The Rambam’s words: Arba kosos eilu tzarich limzog osan kedei shetehei shtiyasan arivah, hakol l’fi hayayin ul’fi da’as hashosah. V’lo yifchos b’arba’asan merevi’is yayin chai.

Speaker 1: This is the Rambam further, “arba kosos eilu” — ah, now he said, “ad kan hilchos haseivah.” He said two laws, more two laws that should look k’ilu hi yetzi’ah. One is haseivah and one is arba kosos. He’s going to say laws of arba kosos.

“Arba kosos eilu” that he said one must drink a k’zayis, “tzarich limzog osan” — but one must mix them.

Speaker 2: What? A revi’is you mean.

Speaker 1: A revi’is, yes, excuse me. One must mix, it means one must mix it with water, “kedei shetehei shtiyasan arivah,” it should be a sweet drink, it shouldn’t be too strong for him.

And how much should the mixing be? “L’fi hayayin ul’fi da’as hashosah,” according to how much the person can tolerate, and according to how strong the wine is. He doesn’t say here what it says in other places that… let’s see, “v’lo yifchos me’arba’asan” — here you see da’as means taste, right? Like hilchos de’os. De’os means character traits, not opinion, right? According to what he likes. This means his love, according to his taste, according to what he likes.

“V’lo yifchos me’arba’asan merevi’is yayin chai” — all four together should not be less than a revi’is, because it comes out that it’s a quarter of a revi’is.

Fulfilled the four cups but didn’t fulfill freedom

The Rambam’s words: Hashosah arba kosos eilu mayim she’eino mazug yatza yedei arba kosos aval lo yatza yedei cheirus.

Speaker 1: “Hashosah arba kosos eilu mayim she’eino mazug” — he drinks from wine that isn’t mixed, and it’s not pleasant to him, it’s not easy for him, “yatza yedei arba kosos aval lo yatza yedei cheirus.” The mitzvah of cheirus, the mitzvah of cheirus is specifically when he drinks it that it’s tasty. Cheirus means the taste.

Speaker 2: What does “yatza” mean? Because arba kosos he doesn’t need to drink again?

Speaker 1: It’s like this, that’s how it appears. He was yotzei, but it’s not k’ra’ui, it’s not b’derech cheirus. But it’s interesting, because earlier it appeared like the arba kosos is a law in derech cheirus.

Speaker 2: True, but there are levels, it appears. Levels of cheirus. You did the arba kosos without the mishum cheirus. You did the arba kosos without the mishum cheirus. You were yotzei the written word of…

Speaker 1: Come here, what, one drinks four cups because one becomes a bit ben chorin, even when it’s not… It’s only an extra… It’s difficult. The Rambam would have wanted… “Lo yatza” means to say that one must drink again.

Speaker 2: He doesn’t say “lo yatza”?

Speaker 1: How much can a person… No, one doesn’t need to. “Lo yatza yedei cheirus.” He doesn’t need to drink again. He needs to add more cheirus. It’s a question. It’s already too late. But… ah, it could be that the word is cheirus. Cheirus is not necessarily four cups, cheirus one can have with one good cup. He should feel like a person, with one good cup. The cups is something a law that it should be specifically four cups. But he wasn’t yotzei cheirus at all. The person didn’t have the cups.

Speaker 2: No, but I’m saying, and how can he now have cheirus? He should drink one good cup.

Speaker 1: No, he can’t. He can’t. He drank four cups. Cheirus in the world. He wasn’t now k’ra’ui. That’s the meaning. He wasn’t now k’ra’ui the four cups. But he was yotzei.

Drank four cups at once

The Rambam’s Words: “If one drank four cups of wine mixed together at once, he has fulfilled the obligation of freedom but has not fulfilled the obligation of four cups.”

Speaker 1: But he drank them all at once, not according to the order, because the Rambam hasn’t yet told us the order, but later we’ll be told when to drink each of the cups. So he has fulfilled the obligation of freedom—he is free, he’s in a good state, he’s content. But he hasn’t fulfilled the obligation of four cups, because the law of four cups is that it must come to drink them in the proper order.

The Required Amount to Drink from Each Cup

The Rambam’s Words: “And if he drank the majority of each cup, he has fulfilled his obligation.”

Speaker 1: Furthermore, how much of the cup must one drink? The Rambam says it should be a revi’is, but how much of it must one drink—the entire revi’is? “If he drank the majority of each cup, he has fulfilled his obligation.” He must drink back a majority of a revi’is, approximately two ounces, he can’t just [take a sip]. Okay.

The Rambam continues, but what does one do with each cup? He was also precise “from each cup the majority.” For example, if someone completely finished one cup, he doesn’t now have extra credit, that for the next one he only needs to take a sip. For each one he must have a majority of the cup.

Law 10: Blessings on the Four Cups

The Rambam’s Words: “On each and every one of these four cups, one recites a blessing on it separately. On the first cup one recites the Kiddush of the day. On the second cup one reads the Haggadah. On the third cup one recites Birkas HaMazon. On the fourth cup one completes the Hallel and recites Birkas HaShir on it.”

Speaker 1: The Rambam continues, “Each and every one of these four cups, one recites a blessing on it separately,” and he lists for us how it actually works out this way. “On the first cup one recites the Kiddush of the day”—now he makes Kiddush. “On the second cup one reads the Haggadah”—so he has the blessing of the Haggadah which ends with “Blessed are You, Hashem, who redeemed Israel.” “On the third cup” one also makes the blessing of Birkas HaMazon. He doesn’t mean here Borei Pri HaGafen; each one has a special blessing. “And on the fourth cup one completes the Hallel,” we finish there with praises, “and recites Birkas HaShir on it.”

Speaker 2: What do you translate “recites Birkas HaShir on it”? Afterwards one makes Birkas HaShir.

Speaker 1: Birkas HaShir means the blessing of Hallel. Birkas HaShir means the blessing of Hallel, Birkas HaShir. But it doesn’t mean finishing the Hallel. The blessing of Hallel, because we begin everything at the second cup, or the blessing of Hallel, or the Hallel itself, or the length of Nishmas, whatever—there are two versions of a blessing that comes after Hallel.

Drinking Between the Cups

The Rambam’s Words: “Between these cups, if he wishes to drink, he may drink. Between the third and fourth, he may not drink.”

Speaker 1: “And between these cups,” says the Rambam, what happens between the four cups? It’s not that if one adds, one is somehow transgressing bal tosif (adding to the commandments). No, “if he wishes to drink, he may drink.” But “between the third and fourth, he may not drink.”

Why? It doesn’t say here in the Rambam why, and therefore we can continue without knowing why. Why do you need to know everything?

Speaker 2: The reason is because then one doesn’t eat and one can become drunk, that’s what I remember. Because he needs to say Hallel, and he’ll become too drunk. And from the others one won’t become drunk—there comes a meal, the food sobers up the…

Speaker 1: Right. So, the Rambam actually doesn’t say here that one makes a Borei Pri HaGafen. Soon we’ll need to see whether the Rambam holds that one makes an additional Borei Pri HaGafen on each cup. It doesn’t say here. Here it just says that one makes the four blessings, the additional blessings, right? And in the next chapter one can see regarding Borei Pri HaGafen, whether one must make an additional one or not.

Law 11: Charoses

The Rambam’s Words: “Charoses is a mitzvah from the words of the Sages, as a remembrance of the clay that they worked with in Egypt. And how does one make it? One takes dates or dried figs or raisins and the like, and crushes them, and puts vinegar into them, and seasons them with spices like clay with straw, and brings it to the table on the night of Pesach.”

Speaker 1: The Rambam continues, a new mitzvah, another mitzvah. He says, charoses is a mitzvah from the words of the Sages that one should have charoses at the table.

Why don’t you know about charoses? It’s a sharp thing. “As a remembrance of the clay that they worked with in Egypt.” Charoses looks like it has some similarity to the clay that we had with this in Egypt.

“And how does one make it?” How does one make the charoses? “One takes dates or dried figs or raisins and the like, and crushes them, and puts vinegar into them.” That means, I think that during the year, here one can put leaven instead of vinegar, I think. This is the charoses that we learned earlier. This is the charoses that one puts vinegar in.

Speaker 2: I want to put in also wheat or something that makes it… I don’t know. Beis HaOr one puts in this, isn’t that right?

Speaker 1: As we learned earlier, Beis HaOr, or the place that one has from outside, it has light in it.

Speaker 2: Yes, yes, the opposite, there is Beis HaOr and Beis HaCharoses.

Speaker 1: No, charoses is with vinegar, it becomes sharp, but it seems that sometimes one puts in flour or something like that, it becomes vinegar.

“And seasons it with spices,” one adds to it spices, like how one puts straw into the clay. It seems for the texture one puts in spices, one makes it more dense, like how one puts straw into the clay to make it dense, to make it hard. And this is the similarity to the clay that they worked with in Egypt. “And brings it to the table on the nights of Pesach.”

Law 12-13: Maror

Maror Is Not a Mitzvah from the Torah by Itself

The Rambam’s Words: “Eating maror is not a mitzvah from the Torah by itself, rather it is dependent on eating the Pesach offering, for it is one positive commandment to eat the meat of the Pesach offering with matzah and maror. And from the words of the Sages, to eat the maror alone on this night even if there is no Pesach offering.”

Speaker 1: The Rambam continues, now we’re going to talk about the matter of maror. The Rambam says, eating maror—we know that one makes a blessing on eating maror, but you should know, “it is not a mitzvah from the Torah by itself.” It’s not a mitzvah from the Torah to eat maror. “Rather it is dependent on eating the Pesach.” It’s a mitzvah that is part of the mitzvah of eating the Pesach offering that one should eat, “for this is one positive commandment to eat the meat of the Pesach offering with matzah and maror.” This is the same mitzvah; there isn’t even here another mitzvah of eating maror. There is one mitzvah to eat Pesach with matzah and maror.

Unlike matzah, where there is a mitzvah that one should eat it together with Pesach and maror, there is an additional mitzvah of “in the evening you shall eat matzos.” But maror doesn’t have this additional mitzvah; the entire mitzvah is only to eat it with the Pesach offering.

Therefore, we don’t have today any Pesach offering. But, “from the words of the Sages,” there is indeed a mitzvah from the Rabbis “to eat the maror alone on this night even if there is no Pesach offering.”

The Five Types of Maror

The Rambam’s Words: “The bitter herbs mentioned in the Torah are chazeres and olshin and tamcha and charchavina and maror. Each one of these five types of vegetables is called maror. And if one ate from one of them or from the five of them a kezayis, he has fulfilled his obligation. And this is when they are fresh. And one fulfills the obligation with their stalks even if dry.”

Speaker 1: Now the Rambam will say, what is this maror? “The bitter herbs mentioned in the Torah are chazeres.” Chazeres, that is… chazeres is certainly not… I think chazeres is also lettuce. “And olshin and tamcha and charchavina and maror.” “Each one of these five types of vegetables is called maror.” There is one of them that is itself called maror, and there are all of these that are called maror in a general way.

It could be, it’s not clear, it could be that one is not obligated specifically in one of the five. This is what the Sages said. Not like with matzah where there are the five species of grain, and it’s clear that rice and millet are not. It could be if someone doesn’t have the maror, I don’t know, go find something similar to this perhaps. You need to think what is the one of the five types, and something is similar to this perhaps.

The Rambam says, “whether he ate from one of them, or from the five of them,” one must eat a kezayis, but it doesn’t matter from one of them or from all of them, a little piece from each. “And this is when they are fresh,” it should be fresh. Fresh, yes, moist. Fresh, yes, moist is when not dried out, not like when it becomes spice and just becomes dry. “And one fulfills the obligation with their stalks,” but the stalks—

Law 13 (Continued) — Laws of Types of Maror

There is the Rambam: “And if one ate from one of them or from the five of them.” It doesn’t need to be… one must eat a kezayis, but it doesn’t need to be from one of them, or from all of them, a little piece from each.

The Types Must Be Fresh

But “and this is when they are fresh”—it must be fresh. No, good. Yes, moist. Fresh, yes, moist is when not dried out, not like when it becomes spice and just becomes crispy.

The Stalk Is Kosher Even If Dry

But “one fulfills the obligation.” “One fulfills the obligation with their stalks”—but the stalk, the tip of it, the middle root of it, even if it is dry.

It seems because this works, one stays with it. It’s sharp, one still makes such a certain thing.

If He Cooked It — Invalid

If he cooked it, the types should have sharpness. But if one cooks it, or soaks it, or cooks it with spices, he no longer fulfills his obligation, because it no longer has the taste of maror. It must be fresh.

Distinction Between Swallowing the Maror and Cooked Maror

There is that earlier we learned that one fulfills his obligation even by swallowing the maror, without the taste of maror. That is when it has the taste, only even you haven’t tasted it.

There was a dispute, remember, there were two versions. One version: if he swallowed the maror he hasn’t fulfilled his obligation; second version: he hasn’t fulfilled his obligation.

There, you can still taste it, you ate it in a different way. But here it doesn’t have the name maror at all.

—

Thus far, Chametz U’Matzah Chapter 8.