📋 Shiur Overview
Summary of the Study in Rambam Hilchos Chametz U’Matzah — Chapter 7 (and Beginning of Chapter 8)
—
Halacha 5 (End) — “Devarim Elu Nikra’in Haggadah”
Rambam’s Language: “Devarim elu nikra’in haggadah”
Explanation: All the things that one says at the Seder are called “Haggadah.”
Insights and Explanations:
– Source of the Word “Haggadah”: The Mekorot V’Tziyunim points to Pesachim 116b, where it states “Ein okrin es hashulchan ela lifnei mi she’omer haggadah.” This is the language of the Gemara — “omer haggadah.” The Rambam’s point is that when the Gemara says “haggadah,” it means all the things that he enumerated.
– Linguistic Analysis — “Haggadah” vs. “Sippur”: There is extensive discussion of the difference between “haggadah” (root h-g-d) and “sippur” (root s-p-r):
– “Haggadah” / “Vayaged” means in Tanach always telling something new that the listener didn’t know. It’s different from “vayomer” which means simply saying (even something already known). “Maggid” is a “news-teller.”
– “Sippur” / “Lesaper” — The Rambam specifically uses the language “lesaper b’nisim u’niflaos” and not “lehagid.” The reasoning is that “lehagid” is not the language of the mitzvah; the mitzvah is “lesaper.” The root s-p-r has a double meaning: (1) to count, (2) to recount. In English as well: “count” and “recount.” The connection between both is that counting means one after another, and recounting also means at length, one thing after another — not just one fact, but a long story.
– “Haggadah” can be about one thing; “sippur” must be a longer story — more than one detail, a sequence of things.
– Also in Yiddish: “tseyln” and “der-tseyln” — the same phenomenon as count/recount.
– [Digression: “Sefer” from the language of boundary:] The “Or Lashamayim HaKadosh” brings that “sefer” can mean a boundary (like “sefer” in Aramaic, “ad sefer har hakedar”). A number (mispar) is also a limitation — a finite amount, not infinite. This can connect “counting” with “boundary.”
—
Halacha 6 — “Chayav Adam Leharos Es Atzmo K’ilu Hu Yatza MiMitzrayim” — Derech Cheirus Through Haseibah and the Four Cups
Rambam’s Language: “Chayav adam leharos es atzmo k’ilu hu yatza miMitzrayim” — learned from “Vayotzi’einu Hashem misham.” “Ulefichach” there are two things that demonstrate derech cheirus: (1) Haseibah and (2) the Four Cups.
Explanation: Both — haseibah and the four cups — are expressions of freedom.
Insights and Explanations:
– The Four Cups as Derech Cheirus: The freedom of the four cups consists not in simply drinking, but in the fact that one doesn’t drink them all at once — one drinks with an order, like a free person. One adds music, one makes a whole lengthy affair. This is the freedom aspect.
– “Afilu ani shebeYisrael lo yochal ad sheyaseiv” (Mishnah): What does “ad sheyaseiv” mean? Two interpretations:
– (1) Literally: reclining (haseibah).
– (2) Rabbi Yechiel Meir’s interpretation: “Ad sheyaseiv” means one sits down — not grabbing a drink and continuing on like a servant who is serving. A derech cheirus is that one sits down, one makes a kevius seudah. Therefore the order of the four cups (kiddush, urchatz, a whole order) itself is a derech cheirus.
– The Poor Person’s Freedom: In “Aniyei Baruch” it states that a poor person doesn’t take time to eat because he doesn’t have much. Therefore the Mishnah says: even the poorest person in Israel should act as if he has plenty — he should take four cups, make a whole lengthy affair, sit down.
– “Kol Hamarbeh Lesaper BiYetzias Mitzrayim Harei Zeh Meshubach”: This is not just a compliment, but it demonstrates more derech cheirus. One who is marbeh b’sippur shows that he is mechabev the expansion, he is expert in it, he is more of an important person. It’s connected to the same concept of haseibah — showing freedom through expansion.
– Haseibah as Another Way of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim: “Kol hamarbeh lesaper” doesn’t mean only more words to say, but also more ways of expressing freedom — through reclining, through dancing, through physical expressions. This is all “marbeh lesaper” — not more words, but more topics, more ways of acting it out. This fits with the principle that haseibah is part of derech cheirus — a form of sippur through action.
– Mishnah Rishonah (on Mishnayos Pesachim) — Why don’t we count sippur yetzias Mitzrayim among “Eilu devarim she’ein lahem shiur”? It’s a mitzvah d’Oraisa that has no measure, as “kol hamarbeh harei zeh meshubach”? Answer: All the things there are things one does always (like talmud Torah), but sippur yetzias Mitzrayim is only on the night of Pesach — it’s a different type of “ein lo shiur.”
—
Laws of Haseibah — Who, How, When
Who Requires Haseibah?
– Everyone, even a poor person.
– A woman doesn’t need to, except an important woman.
– A son with his father — Shulchan Aruch says he does.
– A student (with his rabbi) — doesn’t need to, except with permission.
How?
– Not on the right hand, and not on his face (face down).
When?
– When eating matzah and with the cups. Everything else — one doesn’t need to.
Insights:
– Gemara Pesachim — On which cups does one require haseibah? The first cup — does it require haseibah or not?
– Side A: Only the first two cups require haseibah — because one begins with freedom; later, “mai d’havah havah.”
– Side B: Only the last two — because only later is one already familiar with the freedom; earlier one hasn’t yet left.
– Conclusion: Both — all four cups require haseibah.
– Dispute of the Brisker Rav — Tosafos vs. Rambam in the Nature of Haseibah (Chiddushei HaGriz): The Brisker Rav makes a fundamental dispute. Tosafos/Rosh learn that haseibah is a requirement in the matzah and four cups — in order to fulfill the mitzvah properly one must do it in the manner of haseibah. The Rambam however sees haseibah as a separate requirement in itself — an extra mitzvah of derech cheirus, not a condition in matzah/cups. The Brisker Rav writes “v’lo k’Tosafos v’HaRosh,” though it’s not clear exactly where the Tosafos and Rosh stand.
– Practical Difference from This Distinction: If haseibah is a requirement in matzah/cups (Tosafos), then without haseibah one doesn’t fulfill the mitzvah. If haseibah is a separate mitzvah of derech cheirus (Rambam), then one fulfills matzah/cups without haseibah, but one misses a separate mitzvah. (Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach also has a discussion about this.)
– Haseibah with Maror — May One or Not? The Gemara says “maror ein tzarich haseibah” — which can mean only that it’s not an obligation, but not that it’s forbidden. In the Haggadah it states one should not recline with maror because it’s a remembrance of slavery, but the Gemara itself doesn’t seem that way — it seems it’s simply not an obligation. The Rambam himself doesn’t bring explicitly that one should not recline with maror.
– An Innovation: Maror is Also a Taste of Freedom: The simple understanding of maror is not just “shemereru haMitzrim es chayei avoseinu” (which is a derasha), but that the Torah gave a normal sandwich (korban Pesach with matzah and maror), and the maror is like a pickle — a normal part of eating. The “al shem shemereru” is a hint, but not the main reason. Therefore one could argue that one may recline even with maror.
– However: In a Beraisa it states explicitly that matzah must be eaten with haseibah, and maror — if one doesn’t want to with haseibah, one doesn’t need to. The simple understanding remains that with maror there is no obligation of haseibah.
– [Digression: Personal Story — Seder in ICU:] The maggid shiur made a Seder in ICU two years ago, which was “the opposite of derech cheirus.” He had to accompany his daughter, drank a cup with his wife, and it was a Seder without kevius — “here a grab, there a grab, like one does at hakafos.” This is brought as an example that haseibah must be with kevius — sitting in one place.
—
Laws of the Four Cups — Mixing, Blessings, and Between the Cups
Mixing and “Areiv”
Rambam’s Position: The four cups must be mixed, so that it should be areiv (pleasant for the drinker). “Tiknu yayin lefi daas hashosah.”
Explanation: One must mix the wine so it should be pleasant to drink.
Insights:
– “Areiv” with the Four Cups vs. Kos Shel Berachah in General: Certain Acharonim want to say that the definition of “ra’ui” with the four cups is different from kos shel berachah in general. With a regular kos shel berachah there is a requirement of importance of the cup — “kol hara’ui legabei mizbe’ach” — but with the four cups the main thing is that it should be areiv for the person. Therefore, even things that are not ra’ui to be poured on the altar can be kosher for leil haSeder. This would mean that Pesach is perhaps easier than Shabbos regarding drinking grape juice or must.
– Precision in the Rambam: The language “lefi daas hashosah” is precise — it’s not about which wine is absolutely more important, but which is better for the drinker.
– Measure of Drinking: There is a measure of most of a revi’is (not a full revi’is).
– Grape juice: One can discuss — grape juice is not wine at all. Other things that are invalid are not invalid because they’re not wine, but because they’re not ra’ui to be poured on the altar — they lack the importance in Torah definitions. The Rambam brings a dispute about this, even regarding kiddush.
Blessing on Each Cup
Rambam: One must make a blessing on each cup.
Explanation: He doesn’t mean borei pri hagafen on each cup, but that each cup has its own blessing — first: kiddush, second: Haggadah, third: Birkas HaMazon, fourth: Hallel.
Insights:
– It’s compared to bread — “lechem she’onin alav devarim harbeh” — on bread one also says many things. But with wine it’s always so — “kosos yesh omrim asarah u’shmonah asar.”
– A beautiful thought: One eats matzah which is “packed with aggadah,” one drinks wine which is “filled with praises” — everything is a “song over the wine.”
Between the Cups
Rambam: Between the third and fourth cup one doesn’t drink.
Explanation: One may not drink between the third and fourth cup, so that one shouldn’t become drunk (shema yishtaker).
—
Laws of Charoses
Rambam: “Charoses mitzvah midivrei sofrim… zecher latit… mevi’in oso al hashulchan.”
Explanation: Charoses is a mitzvah derabbanan, a remembrance of the clay, one brings it on the table.
Insights:
– The Rambam doesn’t say that charoses has to do with maror. He doesn’t say it’s there to nullify the sharpness of maror. He only says “mevi’in oso al hashulchan” — one brings it on the table. He doesn’t even say that one eats it!
– “Mevi’in al hashulchan” — An Innovation in Understanding: Perhaps the Rambam means that the mitzvah of charoses is not a requirement in eating (not a detail in how one eats maror), but a requirement in sippur yetzias Mitzrayim — one should have it on the table as a remembrance of the clay, and one points to it when one speaks about the clay. The ke’arah is the table — it lies there to show.
– Comparison to Eruv: It’s noted that this is “the same divrei sofrim” — Chachamim who love to make things easier for Jews. The Torah gave bitter maror, and the Chachamim instituted charoses. This is similar to eruv — earlier Chachamim prohibited, and later Chachamim make it easier. However in the Rambam this doesn’t appear — he only says it’s a mitzvah in general, not that it’s there to make the maror easier.
– Rabbeinu Manoach’s Question: Why don’t we make a blessing on charoses? Answer: It’s a tafel — secondary to maror (adam tovel bo). Proof from lulav: With lulav one says “al netilas lulav” but the other species (hadass, aravah, esrog) are secondary — so we see there is tafel and ikar with mitzvos. However this only works if charoses is indeed secondary to maror. If “mevi’in al hashulchan” means it’s a mitzvah on its own, the answer isn’t so simple.
– Pri Megadim on the Order of the Ke’arah: The Pri Megadim says one must make sure the charoses is closer (before the meat and egg), because charoses is a mitzvah derabbanan, and “ein ma’avirin al hamitzvos” — one shouldn’t skip over a mitzvah.
– Rambam’s Recipe: The Rambam gives an exact recipe for charoses. Rabbeinu Manoach also gives a long recipe — “notlin… manachin oso… v’dachin oso” etc.
– Charoses as Part of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim: A source is mentioned (from a verse in Nachum) that charoses lies under the maror like “sand” — a remembrance of the clay of Egypt, as we say in the Haggadah “vayare’u osanu haMitzrim.” However, it’s noted that one can say the connection to Egypt is only “technical.” The Or HaMeir is mentioned as a source for a Chassidic interpretation, but one is warned that one cannot “extract” a halachic understanding from there.
—
Laws of Maror
Maror — D’Oraisa or Derabbanan?
Rambam: Maror is not a mitzvah from the Torah in itself, but dependent on eating the Pesach — “le’echol besar haPesach al matzos u’merorim.” However, derabbanan there is a mitzvah “le’echol maror levado balailah hazeh afilu ein sham korban Pesach.”
Explanation: D’Oraisa, maror is only part of eating korban Pesach. Derabbanan one eats maror even when there’s no korban Pesach.
Insights:
– Dispute of Rishonim — Rashi vs. Rambam: Rashi says that even when the Beis HaMikdash stood, if someone didn’t have a korban Pesach, he still must eat maror. The Rambam’s position is that d’Oraisa maror is dependent on eating the Pesach.
– Precision in the Rambam’s Language — “Ein sham korban Pesach” vs. “Bazman hazeh”: The Rambam says not “bazman hazeh” — he says “afilu ein sham korban Pesach.” This can imply that even nowadays one can perhaps bring korban Pesach — he leaves it open. [R’ Tzvi Moskowitz’s position regarding korban Pesach bazman hazeh is mentioned.]
– Question About When the Beis HaMikdash Stood: Does someone who didn’t bring korban Pesach when the Beis HaMikdash stood — does he need to eat maror alone? This is a practical difference between two understandings: (a) the rabbinic enactment is only after the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed, or (b) the enactment is also when the Beis HaMikdash stood for someone who doesn’t have a korban.
– Precision “Le’echol maror levado”: One can be precise that “levado” means without charoses — he doesn’t believe in dipping in charoses. However it’s rejected: “levado” means without korban Pesach (without Pesach), not without charoses. When the Rambam speaks of the order, yes, matbil b’charoses.
What Are the Five Species of Maror?
The Rambam lists five species: chazeres, olshin, tamcha, charchavina, and maror.
Explanation: There are specific species with which one fulfills the obligation, and one can even combine them to a kezayis.
Insights:
– Identification of the Five Species (according to Rabbi Zohar Amar, an expert in plants of Chazal):
– Chazeres = chasa = lettuce. Everyone agrees on this. The Yerushalmi brings a hint: “chasa” — sheHaKadosh Baruch Hu chas aleinu.
– Olshin = chicory — a type of lettuce family, used to make a coffee substitute.
– Tamcha = endive — a green thing used for spices.
– Charchavina = The Rambam identifies it as a certain wild plant (aringa/eryngium). There are different positions about this.
– Maror = another type of lettuce (kuzbara yustika), a different species of lettuce.
– The Big Question: What Does “Merorim” Mean in the Torah? If there’s a specific plant called “maror” in lashon kodesh, why should “merorim” mean something else? “Al matzos u’merorim yochluhu” — should simply mean the plant called maror! The chavrusa brings a parable: “The Brezan Rav” — is he called that because he lives in Brezan, or because he’s the rav? So too with maror — is “maror” the scientific ancient name of a specific plant, or does it mean simply “bitter things”?
– Two Positions in Understanding “Merorim”:
– Position A (Rambam, Yeshuos Yaakov): Merorim means specific species — five species that Chazal enumerated. Perhaps some of them are from the same family as the species “maror” itself.
– Position B (Rashi, Rema): “Kol esev mar nikra maror” — any bitter grass is kosher for maror. “Merorim” doesn’t mean a specific name, but bitter things in general. The Rema brings this explicitly.
– The Problem with Horseradish: In Ashkenaz the custom was to eat horseradish. But horseradish is not an “esev mar” — it’s a sharp thing, not a bitter thing. It’s also not grass (esev) in the classic sense. Lettuce on the other hand does have a bitter taste. The custom with horseradish arose because lettuce was hard to obtain in Ashkenaz, and hard to check (for insects).
– “Kol Hamukadam BaMishnah Mukadam La’achilah”: The Gemara says that among the five species, chazeres is the best — “mitzvah b’chazeres.” If one doesn’t have chazeres, one continues in the order. The Hagahos Maimoniyos brings this. However, it’s noted that maror (the species itself) stands at the end of the list — which is interesting if “maror” is the main name. Also noted: “Sometimes maror is also maror” — the name “maror” refers both to the general mitzvah and to one specific species.
Shalkan O Chabshan — Eino Yotzei
The Rambam: Shalkan o chabshan eino yotzei bahen.
Explanation: If one cooked or pickled (marinated) the maror species, one doesn’t fulfill the obligation.
Insights:
– Apparent Contradiction with Charoses: Chazal said that one dips the maror in charoses to remove some of the sharpness. If so, why shouldn’t one be able to pickle the maror — that’s also a way to remove sharpness? Answer: It must be sharp/bitter, and one only needs to slightly sweeten it — not completely remove the sharpness. With charoses one only removes a little, but with pickling/cooking one completely removes the taste of maror.
– The Essence of Maror is the Bitter Taste: “Ta’am maror” — the taste of bitter exile. There must be a bitter taste, not just a symbolic eating. One cannot eat sweet things and say one fulfills the obligation.
Combining Species
The Rambam: One can fulfill with “chamishtam k’echas” — a kezayis that is assembled from all five species.
Explanation: One mixes together small pieces from each species to reach a kezayis.
– [Digression: Story with Horseradish:] A story is told of a Jew whose father ate very strong bitter lettuce (horseradish), and the son would open the container so it would go out a bit (weaken), and the father got upset. The chavrusa notes that according to the Gemara one does remove some of the sharpness (through charoses), so the father’s stringency is not according to the Gemara.
—
General Investigation: The Relationship Between the Mitzvos of Leil HaSeder
Are the Mitzvos Independent or Parts of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim?
An important investigation is raised: Are the mitzvos of the night (matzah, maror, charoses) independent mitzvos, or are they only tools/parts of the mitzvah of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim?
– Charoses — it’s “very clear” that it’s part of the sippur (remembrance of the clay), not an independent mitzvah.
– Matzah — has a connection to the sippur (lechem oni, etc.), but is certainly an independent mitzvah — not just a “tool” for sippur.
– Maror — it’s a dispute whether maror is an independent mitzvah, or only part of the Haggadah — so that one can say “maror zeh al shum mah” — meaning, it serves as a tool for the sippur.
– Haseibah — is perhaps not an independent mitzvah, but a derech cheirus — a condition that the other mitzvos should be “in the manner of freedom.”
– Conclusion: With matzah (and perhaps maror) both aspects exist simultaneously — both an independent mitzvah and part of the sippur.
—
Conclusion of Chapter 7 and Beginning of Chapter 8
The study of Chapter 7 is completed, and one moves on to Chapter 8.
📝 Full Transcript
Laws of Chametz and Matzah — Haggadah, The Way of Freedom, Reclining and the Four Cups
Introduction: Conclusion of the First Section — “These Things Are Called Haggadah”
Speaker 1:
The first half was the mitzvah of the Haggadah, yes? It concluded in halacha 5, where it stated “these things are called Haggadah”.
I don’t know where Haggadah begins. Where, where, where… By the way, “are called Haggadah” where? Does he say something in the sources and references? “Are called Haggadah”. Where, where does the word Haggadah appear? I know, I’ve heard of a Haggadah shel Pesach, but is that a source? “Behold, they are called Haggadah”.
He says in Pesachim 116. Where does he say in Pesachim 116? Just Pesachim 116? Let’s see Pesachim 116.
No, usually when the Rambam translates a word, he goes to perhaps a piece of Gemara. Remember that the Rambam, although he says that one doesn’t need to learn Gemara between his book, we should understand the plain meaning in the Gemara sometimes.
The Source of the Term “Haggadah” in the Gemara
Speaker 1:
The language “behold they are called” means to say what the world calls Haggadah? The world knows, when you say Haggadah, a person knows what that is. That’s the main intention.
He says to look at 116, but I don’t see the word Haggadah. Let’s see, the Gemara uses the word Haggadah. Yes, you hear? Ah, it’s there much later. Yes, he already said this, he already said this essentially in the previous chapters.
In 116 amud beis it says for example in the Gemara, “removing the table, and we only remove the table before one who says the Haggadah”. And “even the poor of Israel should not eat until they recline”.
In short, the language “says the Haggadah” is a language of the Gemara. You hear? Interesting language. One says Haggadah.
Linguistic Discussion: “Haggadah” Versus “Sippur”
The Meaning of the Root H-G-D
Speaker 1:
However, Haggadah also just means something said. Haggadah means to tell. “Vehigadeta levinkha”. That’s the translation of the word Haggadah.
And is Haggadah the same as “mesaper”? “Sippur”? There is “lema’an tesaper”, and there is “vehigadeta levinkha”. I don’t know what “tesaper” means in the Torah.
I know that the word “Haggadah”, “lehagid”, hei-gimmel-dalet, always means, if I remember in Tanach, it always means to relate. To relate in the sense, not that I’m relating a verse. It always means something that serves a purpose.
It’s different from “vayomer”. “Vayomer” doesn’t have to be, you can say, but you already know. He says in order to say. “Vayaged” is always I’m telling you something that isn’t known to him.
You’ll be very good in Tanach, you’ll see always. It’s all the same way he goes, it’s… yes, always “vayaged lo”, it’s a… a magid is telling news, that wasn’t known. That’s the translation of the word Haggadah.
But the thing is, you’re saying that in the Haggadah one isn’t being magid the Haggadah, one says it…
The Meaning of the Root S-P-R
Speaker 1:
“Vehigadeta levinkha” is perhaps… I think that the Rambam is the one who… The Rambam says “lesaper yetziat Mitzrayim”, he brings in the word “lesaper benisim veniflaot”. I don’t know if the word “mesaper” appears before the Rambam.
It’s the Rambam who brought in not the word “lehagid”, but “lesaper”, because presumably that one isn’t a language of a mitzvah, it’s not the mitzvah “lehagid”, but “lesaper”.
I think that “sippur” in the Torah usually also means talking, as it says… speaking and talking, that’s what I think. It’s not just… “Vayesaperu”? Talking? I’m looking for how “saper” as a verb… “lesaper”… no.
“Vayesaper ha’eved”, what does it mean together? “Vayesaper ha’eved leYitzchak”. I don’t know, what’s the difference between “vayesaper” and “vayaged lo”? You mean “vayesaper Moshe lechotno”, “vayesaper la’am”. I don’t know what the language of “mesaper” is.
S-P-R: Count and Recount
Speaker 1:
Ah, the English dictionary says that “saper” can mean two things: “count”, yes, two three accounting, and it can mean “recount”. “Recount” means you’re telling a story in English, “recount”.
I don’t know how one can say the same root in English, “recount”. What’s the connection? Because it’s also to remember one thing after another, and it’s different from just relating. Perhaps it’s more like lengthiness, something that’s one by one. Perhaps that’s the connection.
Perhaps one can say that Haggadah can be about one thing, sippur must be perhaps a long story, more than one thing, as if you’re relating it.
And by the way, in Yiddish also, dertzeyln, you know? There’s tseyln and there’s dertzeyln. What does dertzeyln have to do with dertzeyln? It’s English count and recount. As if…
Digression: “Sefer” from the Language of Border
Speaker 1:
I saw on Shabbos in the holy “Or LaShamayim” here, that the Torah is called sefer from the language of sefar, from the language of border. That’s not the Torah that I wanted to say, where it says that the Torah is a border for… a border for the yetzer hara, I don’t know, you can look it up.
But sefer from the language of border is apparently not in… perhaps in Aramaic? “Harei hasefer”? I think that’s Aramaic, sefer. Yes. And it says… no, in Sefarim Pesichim. I don’t know in which language it is. Sefer. That’s a place. “Ad sefer har hakidar”. I don’t know. Sefer har hakidar can mean the border of har hakidar. Sefer can also mean just a place, that can also be.
And one can say that sefer… one can say, without saying that it’s nonsense, one can say that a number is like a border, like a boundary. So much. It’s a limited amount, not infinite, it has an end.
Return to the Topic: “These Things Are Called Haggadah”
Speaker 1:
In short, a story. No, no, I already learned about yetziat Mitzrayim. Anyway, this is called Haggadah. Done.
Ah, he means to say that when it says in the Gemara “one who says the Haggadah”, he means all these things. That’s apparently the point. It can also be that the world calls it Haggadah, I don’t know why he had to say that the Rambam translates a word, he goes into such things.
It could be before this goes the order with ten letters, with signs, so it should fit with the word sippur of counting, of recounting.
Speaker 2:
What are the signs?
Speaker 1:
Ah, you mean the signs that we say, the Kadesh Urchatz? The fifteen. Out of fifteen? Kadesh isn’t out of fifteen? Ten, no. Kadesh, Urchatz, Karpas, Yachatz, Magid, Rachtzah, Motzi Matzah, Maror, Korech. Fifteen. Okay.
The Second Part: To Show Oneself As If He Left — The Way of Freedom
Reclining and the Four Cups as Expression of the Way of Freedom
Speaker 1:
After this the Rambam said, the second part is that there’s a concept of to show oneself as if he left, which we learn from “vayotzi’einu Hashem misham” etc., because God wants us.
Therefore, the Rambam said, there are two things that one who left should not see. One is reclining (hasibah), which is the way of freedom, and with this one shows that it’s one way of freedom. A second thing of the way of freedom is to drink the four cups.
Right? We learned this that a little later in halacha it clearly states that the freedom of the four cups consists in that one doesn’t drink them all at once. Yes? Just drinking is one thing, but drinking with an order, like a free person, with this he shows his freedom, yes? He puts on nice music, and with the four cups he shows his freedom. You see that the four cups is also a concept of showing freedom.
What does it have to do with reclining? It begins with reclining, right? If one didn’t drink with reclining, one also fulfills the obligation.
“Even the Poor Person of Israel Should Not Eat Until He Reclines”
Speaker 1:
No, in the Mishnah it says, “even the poor person of Israel should not eat until he reclines”. What is this “until he reclines”? It appears that this drinking is in the manner of the way of freedom.
But no, it could be that “as if” it takes more time, it’s more like establishing a meal, as I think Rabbi Yechiel Meir said. That “until he reclines” means simply that one sits down, not giving a drink and going further.
No, a talmid chacham is on the way like a servant, the servant when he serves, he grabs. But a way of freedom, before this you see that the four cups in order is the way of freedom, because one sits down, it goes it’s Kiddush, it goes it’s Urchatz, a whole order.
The obligation of matzah begins, we see that the beginning is reversed, to show that you should see that it’s not an obligation of eating, and afterwards you’ll see the true way of freedom.
And in Aniyei Baruch it says that a poor person, because of being poor, enters to eat his meal before he finishes, yes? It’s one of the lowlinesses there, which doesn’t take time. Simply because he doesn’t have much to eat. It’s good. Because here, even the poor person of Israel should make himself a lot to eat, he should take four cups, make a whole lengthiness, sit down.
So these are the two things that one must do in order to show freedom, therefore even the poor person of Israel, reclining is important, and here a measure. Afterwards he says, and many other things, it’s not all organized, I’m trying to grasp.
Laws of Reclining: Who, How, When
Speaker 1:
Okay, here we have the laws of reclining. Who must do reclining, and how one must do reclining, right? And when one must do reclining. Who, how, when.
Who Needs Reclining?
Speaker 1:
Who? The answer for who is everyone, even a poor person. A woman doesn’t need to, except an important woman. A son with his father, the Shulchan Aruch says that he needs to yes, but a student doesn’t need to, except with permission.
How?
Speaker 1:
How? Not on the right hand, or on his face also not.
When?
Speaker 1:
And when? When one eats the matzah and the cups. Everything else is good, but one doesn’t need to.
“Whoever Increases in Relating” — Expansion as the Way of Freedom
Speaker 2:
What is the plain meaning of increasing in relating?
Speaker 1:
Because it shows more the way of freedom, like whoever increases in relating. So, expanding the relating doesn’t mean that he gets a compliment, but he is more an important person, he is a nicer Jew. No, it’s not in the laws. I think it’s the same reclining.
From where did we take the expansion of reclining from Ruth? What does it say there? I have no idea.
So, but in short, how did you say the source of this expansion of reclining for eating a whole meal reclined? That’s the custom, from where do we see this?
It’s interesting that the same exact thing is said about one who increases in relating yetziat Mitzrayim. It’s not the same exactly, because the plain meaning is he shows that he loves the expansion of relating. He shows that he loves the expansion of relating. He shows that he loves the expansion of relating.
He cherishes the expansion, he is expert in the expansion of relating yetziat Mitzrayim. He shows that he is more… what is the… I’ll tell you afterwards, there’s a part.
Gemara Pesachim: On Which Cups Does One Need Reclining?
Speaker 1:
The Gemara says like this, listen, I want to tell you a piece of Gemara. The first cup requires reclining or doesn’t require reclining? Yes, there were some who said that one needs to yes, there were some who said that one doesn’t need to.
What is the conclusion? It depends on which two. One said the first two he hasn’t yet left, and one said… They say to this side, the question is on which two, and one said the opposite. The Gemara comes and says that one must do both.
Yes? I’m trying everything… Yes. Listen to what the Gemara says. What is the side that only the first side should one say? Because in the beginning you are beginning with freedom. Later, what was was, it’s already been.
The side that only the second, because he already was… he is already familiar with the ability of revelation and of rejoicing with Torah. What was was, says the Gemara, if you didn’t have, what was was. But if you have the opposite, you used to honor, and later one fell out, but the principle is, admits that there is a mitzvah of, the Gemara says that if one of both books should already do both. That’s the…
In short, the Yerushalmi brings that the way of service was,
Reclining by Matzah, Maror, and the Four Cups — The Gemara’s Position and the Dispute of the Rishonim
The Gemara in Pesachim About Reclining
And I now want to lay out the discussion.
The Gemara says like this, you hear? I want to tell you a piece of Gemara. Page 28. Matzah requires reclining, and maror doesn’t require reclining. And wine, there was one who said one needs to yes, one said one doesn’t need to. What is the difference? It depends which two. One said the first two he hasn’t yet left, one said no, he hasn’t yet left. A certain elder said to them, the time requires freedom, and one said the opposite. The Gemara says, one should do both. Ah, yes? Three cups… yes? Listen to a Gemara.
Because what does the one who says that one needs the first two say, let’s say? Because in the beginning he holds that one is beginning with freedom, later, what was was, it’s already been. This is against the freedom from exile and from its face. What was was, the Gemara says about the afikoman drinking, what was was. And the one who says the opposite, that earlier it’s still we were slaves, and later one left. But the principle is that one admits that there is such a reality of… the Gemara says, like both reasonings one should already do both. That’s the…
Story: Seder in ICU — Opposite of the Way of Freedom
I once had a seder that was exactly opposite of the way of freedom, and I understand what he means. I was in the ICU two years ago, I could have published a responsa book, because with all kinds of… if one did this and that between here and there, between Karpas and that. Because when my wife woke up a bit, I said, “With you I drank a cup, and I thought to continue.” Meanwhile I had to accompany my daughter to the place where we slept, because it wouldn’t have been the halacha, one would have gone around to the Rebbe’s, one would have grabbed, here a grab, there a grab, like one does by the hakafot. It’s from an establishment, sitting in one place.
The Rambam’s Position on Reclining
Ah, yes, first is a Rabbi Yose, reclining, reclining sign. Ah, I want to see Sha’arei Chidushim, he doesn’t say. Children, it comes from the Gemara. Are you expert in the Gemara? For example, I want to know halacha lema’aseh, if someone wants to yes do reclining by the maror, it says “doesn’t require reclining”. And in the Haggadah, I know, I know, it says one should not recline by the maror, because it’s a remembrance of servitude, and so on. But the Gemara doesn’t look like that, it appears that it’s just not an obligation.
But if you only learn Rambam, yes, the Rambam says one is obligated in reclining at the time of the matzah and the cups. If one wants to include everything, one must include by the maror, no? You understand such a thing? I want to ask you, is this correct? That’s how I would have wanted the halacha to be, but I don’t know if it’s true. I would have strongly wanted it so, because it appears that the reclining is the freedom, that it’s another increase in the relating.
Reclining as a Way of “Whoever Increases in Relating”
Yes, it’s a good explanation. Because I’m saying “whoever increases in relating about yetziat Mitzrayim, behold this is praiseworthy”, the king’s stories, whatever that is. But it’s not a bad explanation, because it’s the same reasoning as what you said earlier. That you’re saying that “whoever increases in relating” is another way of relating. So it could be that “whoever increases in relating” that’s written there can mean two things: it can mean increasing more relating, or through other kinds of ways, through reclining, through dancing, through doing with the… yes, that’s how the Jews left Egypt. It’s all “increasing in relating”, not more words, but more concepts, more ways of acting it out.
Question: May One Recline During the Haggadah?
I want to know if one may sit, if one may recline during the Haggadah. All the Divrei Sofrim, Divrei Sofrim is a nice book on the chapters. Yes, Divrei Sofrim, Rabbi Tzadok. Yes, from the pure one. No, he says in the blessing.
The Dispute of the Brisker Rav: Tosafot and Rosh Against Rambam in the Nature of Reclining
Tosafot and the Rosh, the Brisker Rav sees, all are in the plain meaning. I see the Brisker Rav in this, he makes a distinction between Rashi and Rambam, the Brisker Rav with his followers, Rav Shlomo Zalman has a discussion about this, they make here a dispute between Tosafot and Rambam, that Tosafot learns that reclining is a law in the matzah and four cups, that in order to do the mitzvah of matzah and four cups properly one should do it in the manner of reclining, but the Rambam sees it only as an extra concept of a mitzvah of the way of freedom.
How does he see in Tosafot differently? He points out, I don’t know who, the Chidushei HaGriz himself, “and not like Tosafot and the Rosh”. Where is the Tosafot and the Rosh? I don’t know.
The Practical Difference from This Distinction
What is the practical difference? Is it a law in itself or is it a law in the matzah and four cups? What should be the practical difference? I don’t know. Let’s say someone who is sick who can’t drink any four cups, or can’t eat any matzah. The Rambam doesn’t bring in maror at all that “one should not recline on the maror”. That one shouldn’t, it’s not missing at all means it.
Reclining by Maror — The Question If One May
I think he brings it by the maror also. It’s mixed up, you’re holding yourself here in the middle of acting out a story from when they were slaves. But the truth really isn’t like that. The truth is simply that you need to remember, the whole thing that maror is “shemareru” isn’t simply literal. Simply literal is also a taste of freedom, right? You eat it like a tasty thing, with matzah you eat it like a pickle. A pickle is a measure of something spoiled. So, naturally one can certainly go that way.
Innovation: Maror is Also a Taste of Freedom
I held that “al shem shemareru haMitzrim et chayei avoteinu” (because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our fathers). It’s a derasha (homiletical interpretation). The Torah gave you a normal sandwich, but it said, “by the way,” all the parts of this sandwich are hinted at something. It’s a hint, but about this one shouldn’t eat sometimes, I shouldn’t eat sometimes, I need the carrots there. You still don’t see how it’s normal. Like you say here once, one needs to… kol haneshama tehallelu Kah (let every soul praise God), it’s a certain word, I said that all our wives are important. Ulchatchila yosef kol asid (initially Joseph all future), so says the drama more seriously, more… I’m already saying, I don’t want someone to say at all that one shouldn’t by the maror. What am I saying like this? Don’t mean it. I don’t know. Rishon the maror stands to say. But by the maror doesn’t stand the chanara of I lachma anya (this is the bread of affliction). Ah, they say by right, on him, rotzef there, specifically very, I don’t want not. And here in sifa and tafi in the sifa a. Exactly, ah, ah, it stands there explicitly that the matzah one must eat behasiba (reclining), and the maror it stands there explicitly that if one doesn’t want to eat behasiba, must one eat? Yes, also behasiba. So it stands there explicitly in the, in the, in the brayta, I know. Simply one doesn’t need to. Why did I get involved in just hasiba? The remembrance of freedom. Here what they say yes.
First Mishna: Why Doesn’t One Count the Story of the Exodus from Egypt in “Elu Devarim She’ein Lahem Shiur”?
There is a sefer Mishna Rishona on Mishnayot in Pesachim, he asks why in the mishna of “elu devarim she’adam yotzei bahen” (these are things that a person fulfills with them) doesn’t one count the story of the Exodus from Egypt? This is a mitzvah d’orayta (biblical commandment), and it has no measure, as it says “kol hamarbeh harei zeh meshubach” (whoever elaborates is praiseworthy). Again, “elu devarim she’adam yotzei bahen,” why doesn’t one count there? Not there until early morning or something? No, “kol hamarbeh harei zeh meshubach” one can… Okay, seemingly all things there she’adam yotzei bahen, ends sometime when a person needs… Talmud Torah (Torah study) one can every day, and such things. It’s different, a thing that anyway one does it, one is a mitzvah, matzah with the Exodus from Egypt at night, means it at night. Okay, it’s a matter.
In short, here it says that one can yes, if one wants one can yes get involved in the question, must give.
Kelayot Va’agozim — A Law on Yom Tov
Why does he ask? The Rambam says by every Yom Tov one must make happy the wife, buy clothing, and the children one must give kelayot va’agozim (roasted grain and nuts). Nu? So it’s not specifically the kelayot va’agozim of Leil HaSeder that’s something special, it’s a law on Yom Tov. It’s a law on Yom Tov. Okay, maror. In short, one should get involved with the maror, I don’t know.
Okay, let’s go further. Okay, very good. I haven’t found any main law about this. I haven’t found about this. Okay.
Four Cups — Mixing and “Suitable”
Says the holy… Okay, now, four cups. Also after drinking, there must be mixing so that it should be suitable.
And certain Acharonim (later authorities) want to say that from what it says “suitable” means to say that it shouldn’t go with the law of kol hara’uy legabei mizbe’ach (all that is suitable for the altar), rather it’s a matter of “suitable” that the person should have a taste. Therefore even things that aren’t suitable for the altar,
Laws of Four Cups, Charoset and Maror
Laws of Four Cups — Mixing and Pleasant
Speaker 1: Okay.
Says the holy… Okay, now, four cups, also one must drink, there must be mixing, so that it should be tasty and it should be pleasant. Certain Acharonim want to say that from the definition of pleasant means to say that it shouldn’t go with the law of kol hara’uy legabei mizbe’ach, rather it must be pleasant that the person should have taste. Therefore, even things that aren’t suitable for the altar can however yes be good for Leil HaSeder, because it’s not like a law of kos shel beracha (cup of blessing) which has various laws which is the importance of the cup. Here the main thing is it must be good for you. That means it comes out that Pesach can be even easier to drink must or grape juice than Shabbat, with this calculation. This word arev (pleasant), arev means for the person.
Okay. Here there is a measure of rov revi’it (majority of a quarter-log), that means not a revi’it, a quarter revi’it comes out. And this is very precisely stated in the Rambam the simple meaning, because he also says “tiknu yayin lefi da’at hashoteh” (they instituted wine according to the understanding of the drinker), not that there is something a law which wine is more important, there is a law which wine is more important to drink than the letter lamed. Here one can already judge, does it mean that grape juice is not at all wine, but other things are invalid because it’s not suitable to pour on the altar, and not simply it’s not wine, rather it just doesn’t have the importance in the Torah’s parameters. I saw that the Rambam brings that there is a dispute about this, even regarding kiddush. Aha.
Blessing on Each Cup
The Gemara says that one must make a blessing on wine. Yes. Says the Rambam that on all of them the blessing doesn’t go up, he says one doesn’t need to make borei pri hagafen (who creates the fruit of the vine). The Gemara says that it should be pleasant, wine ki yesad (when it gladdens), but the Rambam doesn’t bring the law. The Rambam doesn’t say anything. The Rambam says that one must make a blessing on each cup. There are four cups, first kiddush. Each has its own blessing, he doesn’t mean the borei pri hagafen. There are four other blessings that one says on them. Simply that so the wine comes with this so well, it’s like a song on the wine. On the first one says, on the second one says, on the third one bentches (says grace), on the fourth… It’s also on the bread, on the bread one says “lechem she’omdin alav devarim harbeh” (bread over which many things are said), but on wine it’s always. Kosot yesh omrim asara ushemona asar (cups some say ten and eighteen), this is a general thing.
Speaker 2: What?
Speaker 1: No, I’m saying both have something of saying on, when this lies there before our eyes, when this will go into the thing. But it can be, yes, ‘kol yafeh bashamayim’ (all is beautiful in heaven). The Aggadah, one eats matzah which is packed with Aggadah, one drinks wine which is filled with praises.
Speaker 2: No, it’s a fixed business, but here it’s opposite, on the wine one says the…
Speaker 1: One on the world, okay.
Between the Cups
Okay, so, in between the cups, one doesn’t drink except between the third and the fourth, God forbid why?
Speaker 2: Why.
Speaker 1: Okay, until here laws of four cups, he says why.
Speaker 2: Why my key is rabbi lo yishteh (the rabbi won’t drink)?
Speaker 1: Until then gomza shekhar (he will drink intoxicating drink), okay?
Speaker 2: I already have other explanations.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yes.
Laws of Charoset
Let’s go further. Good, before alef charoset, will they say about this laws of charoset?
Rambam: Charoset mitzvah midivrei sofrim (charoset is a rabbinic commandment).
Speaker 1: It occurs to me that it’s the same divrei sofrim (rabbinic words) that have ‘asara benei Haman talui’ (the ten sons of Haman were hanged). The work of the Sages is to make easier. Torah gave you very bitter maror, it doesn’t say in the Rambam that the charoset has anything to do with the maror remembrance.
Speaker 2: Right, in the Rambam one doesn’t see it.
Speaker 1: But yes, it’s the same rabbis who like to make things easier, also the same rabbis who came up with eruv, as if the earlier Sages forbade. And let’s make it easier now. This he says, before one will, an importance, make it easier for Jews.
Speaker 2: But you’re saying that here it doesn’t say.
Speaker 1: Here it only says that it’s a mitzvah in general. Doesn’t say that it’s…
Precision in the Rambam — “Mevi’in Oto Al HaShulchan”
Speaker 1: Zecher letit (remembrance of the clay), that one should have charoset on the table. The Rambam doesn’t say that it’s a law in the apples. Perhaps this isn’t the mitzvah that you understand. Perhaps this is already just, nature. But what he says that the mitzvah is, yes, mevi’in oto al hashulchan (they bring it to the table). He doesn’t even say that one eats us has a thing.
Speaker 2: Why actually? In the Gemara isn’t it quite obvious that it’s to take away the sharpness and so on?
Speaker 1: You know, you know. I don’t know. I don’t know any Gemara. I don’t know such other things. You know, you know. I don’t know anything. I barely know what it says in the Rambam.
Rabbeinu Manoach’s Recipe
Yes, so you see in Rabbeinu Manoach, so you see that he has a long recipe exactly how one does it, one washes it off.
Speaker 2: Why do you say a recipe?
Speaker 1: The Rambam also says a recipe.
Speaker 2: Yes, but one washes notlin, one washes manachin oto, vedochin oto, and so on.
Speaker 1: He gives you an exact recipe.
Okay, and… I don’t know. It’s a bundled trouble how the Rambam rules charoset, that it’s a mitzvah, and… Okay.
Rabbeinu Manoach’s Question — Why No Blessing?
So Rabbeinu Manoach asks a question, why don’t we make any blessing on the charoset? He says, the answer is that it’s a tafel (secondary), it’s a tafel to for example adam toveil bo (a person dips in it). Okay, one must know that this doesn’t agree with Rabbeinu Manoach…
Speaker 2: He asks, lulav one sees indeed, yes.
Speaker 1: Ah, he says, but al kol talmidei (on all students), by lulav one also sees that one says “al netilat lulav” (on taking the lulav), but the others are secondary. He actually brings a proof that there is yes tafel ve’ikar (secondary and primary) by mitzvot. Interesting. But this also only agrees if it’s actually a tafel to the maror. But if it’s just mevi’in al hashulchan and it’s a mitzvah by itself, and as I see that the Pri Megadim has a thank, yes, have you seen the way how the ke’ara (seder plate) is arranged. He says that but one must make sure that the charoset is before the meat and the egg, because this is a mitzvah miderabbanan (rabbinic commandment), and “ein ma’avirin al hamitzvot” (one doesn’t pass over mitzvot), because he will go release the…
Discussion — Charoset as Mitzvah Lehavi or Mitzvah La’asot
Um, so this actually agrees, yes, even if charoset is only a mitzvah lehavi (commandment to have), not a… I don’t know, I don’t know if the Rambam has… The Rambam says that one eats charoset, he doesn’t say just “zecher letit,” he says “zecher letit.” Everyone knows that charoset one dips in the maror, and “zecher letit” must be one dips. I don’t know if he actually means literally that none of us eats it. I don’t know, I don’t know. It’s simple, the charoset is a dip, and one doesn’t even need to eat it at all.
Okay, let’s continue. Second maror.
Laws of Maror
Already, this was the charoset what we know for today. Now we’re going to learn about maror.
Rambam: Maror is not a mitzvah from the Torah in itself, aha, rather it is dependent on eating the Pesach. There is one mitzvah to eat, “le’echol besar haPesach al matzot umarorim” (to eat the meat of the Pesach offering with matzot and bitter herbs). But rabbinically there is yes such a mitzvah, “le’echol maror levado bazman hazeh afilu ein sham korban Pesach” (to eat maror alone in this time even when there is no Pesach offering).
Dispute of Rishonim — Rashi and Rambam
Already, and this there is a great dispute of the Rishonim. Rashi says that yes, that even when the Temple was standing and one didn’t have any Pesach, one should still eat maror. But the Rambam says that this isn’t a contradiction, because the Rambam says that even in this time… No, the Rambam says that it’s dependent on eating the Pesach biblically, nu.
Speaker 2: Again, you said that it’s rabbinic, that it’s biblical the matzah, the maror?
Speaker 1: No, the question is whether it was biblical only when there was Pesach, or when there was still a korban Pesach and someone for some reason didn’t bring a korban Pesach or he didn’t eat the meat, whether one must anyway eat the maror alone as a substitute for eating the Pesach. Okay, one can perhaps ask on the Rambam. Actually, not specifically the Rambam didn’t say so. It can be the question is perhaps the rabbis actually instituted it afterwards. One must know when they made the enactment.
Precision in the Rambam’s Language — “Ein Sham Korban Pesach”
Okay, but the Rambam doesn’t say, the Rambam doesn’t say that it’s in this time. The Rambam says that it’s when there is no Pesach. And the divrei sofrim (rabbinic words) is however a mitzvah to eat maror alone on this night, even when there is no korban Pesach.
So one sees here from the Rambam that it can be in this time korban Pesach in his language. He wouldn’t have been able to bring korban Pesach in this time. Yes, this must be explained by our expert Rabbi Tzvi Moskowitz, yes. He answered something. Because he’s busy, he puts up on status how one can sign up. There is a form how one can become a partner in the multitude on the mitzvah.
Precision “Le’echol Maror Levado”
It’s interesting, because one can perhaps take precisely from the language “le’echol maror levado” (to eat maror alone) that he doesn’t believe in dipping in charoset.
Speaker 2: He doesn’t mean, he means the difference… when he speaks the difference from korban Pesach.
Speaker 1: But when he speaks of the seder, yes, matbeil becharoset (dips in charoset). Yes, so the Rambam also knows that one dips in charoset. It can be “mevi’in oto al hashulchan” means that it should lie on the table, an extra thing. Not one should bring it by the charoset, rather it should be on the table, like other things that are there to show.
Charoset as Part of the Story of the Exodus from Egypt
So how is this seemingly perhaps a detail in the story of the Exodus from Egypt? The mitzvah from the rabbis that one puts it zecher letit (remembrance of the clay), zecher letit is certainly a matter of the story of the Exodus from Egypt, one should remember the clay, perhaps one should point to this when one speaks about the clay. So about this agrees the “mevi’in al hashulchan.” He means to say, you shouldn’t think that it’s only a mitzvah in eating, a detail in how one eats the maror, rather it’s a law in the story of the Exodus from Egypt. The ke’ara is indeed the table, yes, yes.
What is Maror — Seeds
Okay, what is maror? Moradim umemarim baTorah (those who rebel and embitter in the Torah). That is, what are such seeds?
Speaker 2: But the teacher doesn’t say that one will soon begin to see about the Messiah.
Speaker 1: Chazeret is… Yes, chazeret, that’s what they call me chazeret. You know what things are, are someone… My olshin plants, I don’t know.
Bitter Herbs — The Five Species and the Dispute About Their Nature
The Table and the Ke’ara
Speaker 1: This is the table that one removes later by the Haggadah.
Speaker 2: Yes, the ke’ara is the table. Yes, yes.
Identification of the Five Species
The First Question: What Are the Species?
Speaker 1: Okay. What is marorim? Marorim morim baTorah (bitter herbs teach in the Torah). Heim, what are they? Chazeret… But the maror he doesn’t say. But soon we’ll see about this. Chazeret is… Yes, horseradish? Wasn’t it with horseradish?
You know what these things really are? Because olshin betzamachim (plants), I don’t know.
Speaker 2: I know that chazeret is the lettuce.
Speaker 1: Ah, chazeret is the lettuce, and maror is what is called the horseradish. Yes? I don’t know for sure, perhaps tamcha… Horseradish is fake anyway.
Okay. He doesn’t say the names what chazeret is? Okay, so one must know, chazeret indeed there are five things: chazeret, olshin, tamcha, charchavinah, and maror. And maror. What are all these things? So.
Okay, I can already tell you what they are, I can ask Wikipedia. Okay.
Speaker 2: What difference does it make? This is all from the Gemara.
The Fundamental Question: What Does “Maror” Mean?
Speaker 1: I’m saying, if there is something whose name is maror, why should one say that maror means at all something other than this? Unless maror means what Jews call maror, not that this is the scientific name that the Sages knew of. I’m saying, aha, maror, if there is some vegetable that this is the real name in the holy tongue, the old name is maror, it’s simple that when one says maror one means that.
Rabbi Zohar Amar’s Identification
Speaker 1: Okay, gentlemen, let’s hear. I’m telling you a shiur from Rabbi Zohar Amar, he’s a great expert in plants in the Sages. So, maror, simply, he says, everyone agrees, chazeret, everyone agrees that chazeret is chasa. Chasa means lettuce, basically.
Speaker 2: Chasa shehaKadosh Baruch Hu chas alav (lettuce that the Holy One Blessed Be He had mercy on him).
Speaker 1: No, so is the Gemara, no? Chas Rachmana aleih (the Merciful One had mercy on him), something.
Speaker 2: No, that this is the hint, chas Rachmana aleih. This is actually in the Gemara?
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, in the Yerushalmi I think they ask.
Olshin, he says, is chicory. I don’t know what that is. I don’t understand about this. Chicorium he says here in Hebrew. This he says is olshin. Okay. This is a type of lettuce, also some type of lettuce.
Speaker 2: Ah, one makes from this a substitute for coffee, he says.
Speaker 1: Okay, tamcha, he says, is certainly some kind of endive. Endive, you know what endive is? It’s something that’s used for spices. Endive. Okay, they sell it in stores. It looks like this, it’s a green thing like that.
Speaker 2: Yes, I see.
Speaker 1: He brings other opinions. Charchabina, okay, there are other opinions. He has pictures, but I don’t see the pictures, I don’t know. Charchabina, he says, the Rambam says is some kind of thing. Which wild plants? Ungringa I don’t know what that is, I haven’t heard of it. Aringa fritum, I don’t know what that is. There are other opinions perhaps. There were customs to actually use this for maror, which he brings here, aringan, aringaus, something like that it’s called.
There are those who argue, however, there are those who argue and say that it means something else.
Maror, he says, is another type of chasa (lettuce). Kuzbra, kuzbra yustica, some other type of lettuce.
Discussion: Is “Maror” a Specific Name or a General Description?
The Parable of the Brezan Rav
Speaker 1: I want to know, when it’s called maror, is the simple meaning that this is the ancient lashon kodesh (Hebrew) name maror? If yes, then one should simply say that merorim means that maror.
Speaker 2: Ah, you want to understand the logic of the whole thing. That’s a good question. I don’t know the answer.
Speaker 1: No, once there is something called maror, why should one think that merorim is a plural form? Merorim minei maror, that they are things similar to maror? That it means anything else besides maror? If there is something called maror, will the Torah say “al matzos umerorim yochluhu” (they shall eat it with matzos and bitter herbs), with the thing called maror. Or is maror only something that’s called maror because Jews ate it?
The question is like this, like the Brezan Rav, because he lived in Brezan, or because the Brezan Rav was a rav? Maror, does it mean to say that which Jews eat and it’s known as maror, or is it some scientific ancient name that’s called maror? I believe if there were something that is a lashon kodesh plant that in lashon kodesh is called maror, one would say that this is certainly what the Torah says merorim. In Ashkenaz they held that maror is different according to various opinions. The Yeshuos Yaakov certainly says that this is the Rambam’s opinion.
Two Possible Interpretations of “Merorim”
Speaker 1: It could be that there are, it seems, it seems this is about several opinions. There are those who say that… that one fulfills the obligation essentially with any bitter grass. Merorim means bitter grasses. It’s not a name of a grass, rather it means bitterness. Merira. And the Mishnah perhaps only incidentally found that… or it could be that maror means a certain species, and there are more merorim, it says, there are several that are called that. Not the simple meaning that they are all five, rather they are called maror. Yes. But perhaps there are others who say that it’s not necessarily so.
The Dispute Between the Rambam and Rashi/Rama
The Custom with Horseradish in Ashkenaz
Speaker 1: For us who conduct ourselves to eat something that is… Okay, those of us who eat horseradish, one doesn’t eat horseradish anymore come the stringencies. The Gemara says “mitzvah b’chazeres” (the mitzvah is with chazeres). Chazeres means chasa, salad. Right, the Gemara says “mitzvah b’chazeres,” the Gemara says that the main thing is the lettuce. Well, very good. But our grandfathers all used to eat horseradish. Also lettuce was hard to get, and it was hard to check. It became that any sharp thing one fulfills with it, because it appears to be from plants.
Speaker 2: And if it means bitterness, why should lettuce be in the category?
Speaker 1: You hear? Merorim can mean two interpretations. Either it can mean a name of a type of plant, which is called merorim? And what does it say here about maror? Then how are all the other things okay? It could be that the other things are from the family of maror. That’s how I see it in their English dates, a few of them have the same name. They’re all from the same family. But not all are from the same family. And tamcha is not all. Not all, but some of them. One needs to know the others, how do the others come in. But if merorim means bitter things, it doesn’t mean a scientific name for a type of vegetable, bitter things, then the question is why does one fulfill with anything else but horseradish?
The Opinion of Rashi: “Kol Esev Mar Nikra Maror”
Speaker 1: Look, look, he brings here the dispute. Here the Rambam implies that there are five species, but the Rama says explicitly that one can take all, that he says Rashi doesn’t agree, kol esev mar nikra maror (every bitter herb is called maror).
Speaker 2: Ah, that’s what Rashi says? That’s the version? Kol esev mar. Well, is horseradish an esev mar?
Speaker 1: Yes. Horseradish is not an esev mar, it’s a completely different thing, it’s a sharp vegetable, it’s not an esev mar. I saw the opinion of Tosafos, it’s an opinion. One can even more hear that lettuce is an esev mar. It has a certain bitterness, lettuce, yes? It has a bit of a bitter taste. Charoset is a different thing, it’s a sharp thing. It’s also not an herb, it’s also not an herb, unless it is from a larger herb.
Speaker 2: Even if the Rambam says there are five, it doesn’t say in Tosafos. There are others, yes or no, who says?
Speaker 1: He brings here… What he says he says, in practice I’m not convinced. Who says like you?
And one also eats, one also eats, one mixes together, a kezayis (olive-sized portion) fulfills.
In short, in practice, it’s a question. Very good, one needs to know, the Rambam it seems the Rambam means that there are certain species to make, and they mean the bitterness. One needs to know, if they were cooked or pickled it’s no longer valid, even if you don’t wait specifically for bitterness.
Cooked or Pickled — One Does Not Fulfill
The Essence of Maror is the Bitter Taste
Speaker 1: It must be bitter. The Gemara says, “ta’am maror” (taste of maror), taste of bitter exile. From this it’s called maror, no? It’s just a spray that you’ll feel unwell. It’s not a question.
He will have a bitter life, and he eats sweet things and he says he fulfills.
The Law of Mixing and Pickling
Speaker 1: It must be fresh. One can also fulfill with chamishtan k’achas (the five as one), a little bit from each, a kezayis that is composed of all of them. And the mixture is even valid. But cooked or pickled one does not fulfill. Why not? If you say that it’s not bitter, it’s interesting, because Chazal said that one should dip it in charoset to remove from the sharpness.
Speaker 2: We haven’t talked anything yet about charoset.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, nothing happened. But I just want to say, someone thinks, “Ah, I have a better way to remove the sharpness, I’ll pickle it.” Then he didn’t fulfill. It must be sharp, and one must sweeten it a bit. It must be sharp, and one must sweeten it a bit.
I haven’t seen in the laws, and one can pickle four amos or whatever. If you remove the sharpness entirely, it’s not valid. It must be there in the Mishnah.
A Story: The Trauma with Bitter Chazeres
Speaker 1: A Jew told me his trauma, that his father eats very bitter chazeres, and he always opens the container so it should go out a bit, and his father catches him and gets angry at him. One must tell his father that the Gemara brings that one removes it, that one removes the species. One sees Torah, that you see in the Gemara not like those who say that one must specifically have the species.
Kol Hamukadam BaMishnah Mukadam LaAchilah
Speaker 1: But the Gemara counts out, “kol hamukadam bamishna…” No, this is in order, this is Hagahos Maimoniyos here on the spot, “kol hamukadam bamishna mukadam la’achilah” (whatever comes first in the Mishnah comes first for eating). Among the five things, the best is chazeres. If you don’t have, one goes… It’s hard to say so. Because the Rebbi brings here that maror is at the end. Maror is the maror itself.
Well, one can say that maror is also with maror, you know what? Sometimes maror is also a maror, but doesn’t have for otherwise.
Conclusion of Chapter 7 – Maror, Charoset, and the Relationship Between the Mitzvos of Seder Night and the Story of the Exodus from Egypt
The Order of Priority Among the Five Types of Maror
Speaker 1: No, this is… I’m sorry, this is the Hagahos Maimoniyos here on the spot. Chalav mukadam, v’hamukadam mukadam la’achilah. Among the five things, the best is chazeres. If you don’t have, one goes… It’s hard for me to say so, because the Rambam lists maror at the end.
Speaker 2: Okay, whatever.
Speaker 1: Maror is maror itself.
Speaker 2: Sometimes maror is also maror, you know what? Sometimes maror is also maror. It’s not so different.
Speaker 1: Fine, let’s continue.
A Mitzvah in Itself or Part of the Story? – An Investigation of the Relationship Between the Mitzvos of Seder Night
Speaker 1: Of the mitzvos, are they a mitzvah in themselves, or are they part of the story. For example charoset is very clear, it seems it’s a matter of a part of the story. But even the matzah one sees has a connection to the story, but it’s certainly a mitzvah in itself. That is, they’re not just tools for the story, they are a mitzvah in itself. But what’s interesting, they are both at once. They are also the same thing with the reclining. Reclining I don’t know, as if the other mitzvos should be in the manner of freedom.
Discussion: Is Chazeres a Mitzvah in Itself or Part of the Story
Speaker 2: What does the Mishnah say?
Speaker 1: The chazeres is… This is the dispute whether chazeres is freedom or a mitzvah, no? Do you mean that it’s a mitzvah in itself? Or perhaps it’s not a mitzvah, rather it’s a part of the Haggadah, that one should say “maror zeh,” and one should…
Speaker 2: What do you want to tell me?
Speaker 1: What? I’m a part, I want to tell you what I thought in Chassidus.
Speaker 2: One minute.
Speaker 1: No, one sees, if one learns the Or HaMeir, one sees…
Speaker 2: No, no, tzaddik, one doesn’t see, one doesn’t see, you won’t be able to extract from there, you know?
Speaker 1: If you can tell me…
Speaker 2: You won’t be able to extract from there the Or HaMeir, you know?
Charoset – A Remembrance of the Clay of Egypt
Speaker 1: Read me the Or HaMeir, and I’ll tell you what I thought. That he reads in Egypt, it also wasn’t so. I don’t remember where it says in the Gemara, but I know that from somewhere from a verse in Nachum one learns it out, that it should lie Egypt under the sand, as the Haggadah says, “vayare’u osanu haMitzrim” (and the Egyptians treated us harshly). One can say that it’s only technical, it’s related to Egypt because one goes to eat it.
Speaker 2: Ah, since I also don’t know, perhaps he wants to see it better or in stone, such things about carefully I know. Ah, since I don’t know, if I’m only going to say things that I know, should I remain silent? Hello? Hello? Yes… aha, so… we finished the chapter with leftover? Yes… we’re going to chapter 8, what does the title say…