Laws of Chametz and Matzah Chapter 8, Laws 12-15: Eating Roasted Meat and One Who Has No Wine or Matzah (Auto Translated)

Customs Regarding Eating Roasted Meat on Seder Night

Law: A Place Where They Have the Custom to Eat Roasted Meat on Passover Nights

Speaker 1:

In short, and they’re holding in Chapter 8, and they’ve already finished the entire Seder night. And we learned that one makes two types of meat, one must be roasted and one must be cooked. From Kiddush until Hallel, okay?

Now he’s going to say a few laws that are related to this topic, what’s the connection, okay? One law is, “A place where they have the custom to eat roasted meat on Passover nights, they eat; a place where they have the custom not to eat, they don’t eat”. There are certain places, there are certain customs. I told you earlier that one has two types of meat, there are differences of opinion. There were those who ate roasted meat, that is those who… okay, not necessarily, but they ate roasted meat. “A place where they have the custom not to eat”, there were places that didn’t.

Why did they say why not? Because “lest they say this is the Pesach meat”. And what’s the problem then? Then they’ll say that one can offer the Pesach sacrifice outside [the Temple]. People will think that one is offering it, and it’s not such a big… one must follow the custom of the place as always. One must follow the custom of the place. What’s the problem? Yes, a Jew must follow the custom of the place.

Discussion: The Difference Between “She’yomru” and “Nir’eh”

Speaker 1:

But what is this “lest they say”? What happened then? People will say, but one shouldn’t. And what’s the concern? They’ll say, what’s wrong if one does this? And what’s the difference with saying? No, one is actually making the meat in the name of the Pesach, it’s nothing. They’ll say, “The rabbi was actually seen going into fat or water”. Yes, you actually learned that one makes two types of meat. What’s the problem if they’ll say it? It’s not according to halacha, because people will think that one can offer holy sacrifices outside [the Temple]. They’ll think that one is offering, and there’s no way.

There are actually people who are the opposite, because they specifically want to have roasted meat. Instead of Pesach they want to have roasted meat. But there are certain places where it’s not like that. There is such a statement. “In any place, a person should not eat an entire roast all at once by himself”. That means, even those who permit, it’s because they’re not afraid that they’ll say, if one takes a whole piece, that it’s roasted the way one roasts the Pesach sacrifice, it will indeed appear as if one is eating holy sacrifices outside [the Temple].

Generally there’s a difference between “she’yomru” and “nir’eh”. “She’yomru” is just a crazy person imagining things, but “nir’eh” is actually like it looks like the Pesach sacrifice.

Speaker 2:

I don’t know, seems the same to me.

Speaker 1:

Presumably there’s a concern that there will be a person who will actually sanctify it, perhaps that’s the problem.

Speaker 2:

If you see someone doing it, it’s a lack of respect for the actual holy sacrifices, that people should think… ah, you see, that’s the direct person. The next person will already do it. He’ll think it’s a mitzvah.

Speaker 1:

Yes. Therefore if something is slightly lacking, then one may in a place where they have the custom.

Speaker 2:

Then it’s slightly not a Pesach sacrifice, because it’s not kosher, if it’s cut, or lacking one of its limbs, or one limb is cooked instead of roasted. Then it’s permitted. In a place where they have the custom it’s permitted.

Speaker 1:

Okay, continue.

Discussion: Customs Regarding the Zeroa and Two Cooked Foods

Speaker 2:

How is the custom in Satmar Rebbe?

Speaker 1:

I think many Jews like to roast the entire animal, but not… by us it’s not the custom.

Speaker 2:

By us it’s not the custom what, exactly?

Speaker 1:

We didn’t roast the big things. Eh, we weren’t into the… what’s it called…

Speaker 2:

Yes, but…

Speaker 1:

We’re lenient. We do roast a bit on the zeroa, right?

Speaker 2:

Ah, no, sorry. A cooked zeroa, we don’t eat it anyway.

Speaker 1:

Not anyway, we don’t take it.

Speaker 2:

Why don’t we eat it? What does it say here is the word?

Speaker 1:

But I mean for example, what I remember, I don’t know where one needs to look up where the custom comes from, that one takes a cooked neck and puts it on the fire for a bit so it should have a roasted appearance. What’s the point? One wants yes, one wants no, one wants… that’s the question, I don’t understand.

Speaker 2:

But by you did they also do this? Did they also roast the neck?

Speaker 1:

Yes, but I don’t know what the custom is. I don’t know what the…

Speaker 2:

Anyway, seemingly the prohibition here is on an animal. I already believe that on chicken there will be the concern. Okay, because here I know perhaps in a place where they have the custom, but yes, outside… ah, yes, the Chanukah. Well, what do the commentators say, the poskim in Warsaw? I’ll go check and see.

Sources: Shulchan Aruch and Rema

Speaker 2:

He doesn’t say. Roasted 518, let’s see. 518 he says on… ah, yes, so… the custom is, as you say, “The custom is to roast”… Shulchan Aruch says “The custom is to roast the zeroa and to cook the egg”. The Rema says one roasts the egg also. Why does one do? Yes, I don’t know. In short…

Speaker 1:

Because the egg is also here in place of as if there was meat, in place of meat. Okay, so we eat actually, our custom is certainly not to eat roasted meat on Erev Pesach, ah, seemingly. And therefore we actually don’t eat the zeroa. What’s strange, one puts something on the plate not to eat, I don’t get it. Ask already actually the…

Speaker 2:

They saw yesterday that there’s a concept of placing, one can put on the table not to eat.

Speaker 1:

No, no, be real. They… it’s a different concept of sweetening the taste of maror. No, be real. They didn’t see, first of all, they only saw the first, didn’t see the second. And secondly, one didn’t see… he did mention yesterday, but the…

Speaker 2:

He did mention yesterday the…

Speaker 1:

Be real, be real. Yes, he says that therefore.

Speaker 2:

But why shouldn’t one be able to put down something as a remembrance that one doesn’t eat?

Speaker 1:

One makes to fulfill. One sees that one sees that it’s lying on the… it’s not food, well, be real.

Question from the Maharshal

Speaker 1:

He says that the Maharshal says it doesn’t make sense. I haven’t seen yet what he says that it doesn’t make sense. Where does the custom come from? I don’t know. But this is simply not because of the concern of eating roasted meat, because it’s cooked. Ah, no, our custom is something, you remember one should take from a raw piece and roast it. But I don’t see many vegetables, I don’t see that you should put this in. Because he says that kavush (pickled) is like mevushal (cooked), shaluk (boiled) is like mevushal, seemingly it should also be when a piece is with the cooking.

Speaker 2:

Again, again, you’re turning to which custom you’re talking about. You’re talking this is according to the custom that is not stringent, and this is only the nicer one. If the custom is indeed to be stringent, one can be sure that the custom is indeed to be stringent, because you know when there’s a custom, one can be as stringent as one wants. But what about the same reason?

Additional Sources: Terumat HaDeshen and Magen Avraham

Speaker 1:

Terumat HaDeshen, potato, he says, it’s very strange, with apologies it’s very strange to me. Yes, he says it’s written in Terumat HaDeshen, it’s written in Ayin-Zayin, in the custom of Israel, in short, one puts the two cooked foods, and they have the custom with meat and egg, and they have the custom with zeroa, and they have the custom with roasted alone, and with egg a third reason. The Rema says that one does conduct with roasted, he says on this the holy Magen Avraham, that if so one may not eat it, not the time for me to be Purim…

Speaker 2:

What does it say here the eating is the concept? The invalidation eighth afterwards in the Pesachim. One thinks that one isn’t even making Yom Tov, because it’s making Yom Tov for yourself. One doesn’t even eat from Rosh Hashanah, like this. From Rosh Hashanah it was conducted differently, from Rosh Hashanah it said that one should actually not do this, should cook a piece of meat and distribute it the people should eat.

Fundamental Question: “Mevi’in” Means to Eat

Speaker 1:

We conduct this way, one puts down the things, it’s a symbol. The language of the Rambam is “One brings to the table two types of meat”. Seemingly it means to say one brings and one eats it. Hello, one puts it on the table to be. It’s not a museum.

Roasted on coals doesn’t fulfill the Pesach sacrifice at all, it must be roasted on fire. Anyway, a roasted egg they say one may eat even if one didn’t… even if one didn’t boil it. In short, the deed is… ah, he says, roasted and afterwards cooked, cooked and afterwards roasted, is forbidden from the Torah, he says.

But I don’t understand the whole problem. It’s all… I don’t understand. One brings something as a remembrance of the Pesach sacrifice, and one says one doesn’t eat it because it’s absurd. Must one make a remembrance… is this a neck or is he talking about meat from an animal? Who’s talking here about poultry meat? The neck is another loophole. What comes in the neck? It’s not a zeroa, it’s not legs. No, the roasted is talking about a lamb, something that one can make a Pesach sacrifice. Even cattle one may seemingly.

Summary of the Question: Does One Want to Make a Remembrance or an Anti-Remembrance?

Speaker 1:

We did a few things stringently. Either one didn’t take animal meat, one took a neck. One still wanted to explain there, and afterwards one doesn’t eat it either. Hello? You want to commemorate the Pesach sacrifice, but you want to do all kinds of things not to commemorate the Pesach sacrifice. You take an egg, and you also don’t roast but you cook it. It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense in my opinion. It doesn’t make sense.

Does it make sense to you? One wants to make a remembrance or one wants to make an anti-remembrance. Hello? Which does one want to make?

Speaker 2:

And this is also exactly the best remembrance, because one is judging all kinds of laws why one has this way, why one doesn’t have differently from this. Yes, a Litvak would have refined himself.

Speaker 1:

And he’s not going to help me at all. In short all these people, and this I want to do.

Discussion About Remembrance of the Pesach Sacrifice and Laws of One Who Has No Wine

Remembrance of the Pesach Sacrifice — The Contradiction in the Custom

Speaker 1:

One wanted to make a remembrance. You say one doesn’t eat it either. Hello? You want to commemorate the Pesach sacrifice, but you want to do all kinds of things not to commemorate the Pesach sacrifice. You say you take an egg and you also don’t roast, but you cook it. It doesn’t make sense, doesn’t make sense, in my opinion. It doesn’t make sense. Sorry, it doesn’t make sense.

Speaker 2:

Does it make sense to you?

Speaker 1:

Must one make… one wants to make a remembrance or one wants to make a similar remembrance. Hello? Which does one want to make? You eat it still exactly the best remembrance, because one is judging all kinds of laws that one may not do, that one doesn’t do differently and this.

Yes, for Litvaks who answered themselves. He’s not going to help me. In short, all these people, what will I do? In short, I don’t know.

Oy yoy yoy, already, enjoy. Anyways, further.

Explanation: The Origin of the Law

Speaker 1:

What is this that by Yud one doesn’t have wine? I told you, I don’t know.

This is the same thing. The whole law began because there were those who indeed wanted to replicate exactly like the Pesach. Because there’s a question if on other holidays, one may not eat meat, one doesn’t look like it’s the sacrifice of Sukkot. There’s a question on such a thing.

Here it began this way, there were those who wanted because of the dearness of the mitzvah of the Pesach sacrifice to make such a close remembrance, actually take a lamb and make it look exactly like the Pesach sacrifice. Here it began that this is a concern, this is a problem. Therefore one arrived at what one arrived at. One still wants to diminish their merit that they did. The merit that they did, that one mentions the Pesach sacrifice, is a tremendous thing. But… yes…

Question: Why Afikoman with Matzah and Not with Meat?

Speaker 1:

Why did the Sages make the mitzvah of afikoman to be with a piece of matzah, why not with a piece of meat? The main thing is that one should remember to finish the meat.

Speaker 2:

That’s not a mitzvah, the meat is not a mitzvah, it’s just eating.

Speaker 1:

Ah, by afikoman it’s a bit of an object of mitzvah, because it’s the mitzvah of matzah. I don’t have, because he was already fulfilled… it’s difficult questions, it’s a mitzvah. It’s a mitzvah to eat matzah, it’s also a mitzvah to eat meat on Yom Tov. I’ll tell you after Yom Tov when I’ve found out, until then I don’t know.

Okay, let’s go further. Just because I can’t sleep at night. Yes, the weddings, Jews shouldn’t have weddings. The weddings, what does it have to do with me? Okay, let’s continue.

—

Law 13: One Who Has No Wine on Pesach Night

The Rambam’s Language

Speaker 1:

One who has no wine, when does he not have wine? On Pesach night. What does it mean that he doesn’t have wine on Pesach night? And he makes Kiddush on bread, meaning Friday night. He can make Kiddush on bread, and on matzah actually. In the order of all the customs according to this order, he does everything in order.

I understand that the eggs, the roasted ones, one must give wine, but it’s not, some Jews it didn’t happen. Makes Kiddush on bread, meaning he won’t be able to make the four cups. He won’t be able to make four cups from bread, no? Can one?

Story from the Camps — Remembrance for the 4 Cups

Speaker 1:

I heard that there was a Jew in the camps who wanted to make a Seder, they took four pieces of sugar. So what’s the concept? Now it’s a remembrance, just as the Gemara says one can take a lemon, but not an apple, but one can take a remembrance for the 4 cups, for the matzah, what’s the concept? It’s a remembrance. This will only be like 4 cups. There are strong investigations on the 4 cups. Perhaps four toothpicks, because it’s something… anyway, it wasn’t like that. It’s something that one has pleasure. Just as one ate the sugar and felt a good taste in it.

Speaker 2:

Ah, perhaps you mean to say that it’s something a… that it’s like a… wine, that anything that is tasty has a taste of wine, like chamar medinah.

Speaker 1:

We haven’t seen whether one can use chamar medinah. No, it’s not.

Discussion: Chamar Medinah by Kiddush

Speaker 1:

One who has no vegetables, whoever doesn’t have vegetables, it means he doesn’t have… but I want to understand you, because seemingly on Kiddush, perhaps even if on the 4 cups wine is not good, on Kiddush it would seemingly have to… so does it say in the concept of Kiddush by you? Or you say so it should have said?

Speaker 2:

What?

Speaker 1:

Me too. I only know the story of Rav Eliyahu Chaim’s son-in-law. It doesn’t say in Kiddush that one can make on chamar medinah. What do you mean? Do you mean regular Kiddush? Or do you mean Pesach?

Speaker 2:

Kiddush of Shabbat.

Speaker 1:

The Rambam doesn’t mean chamar medinah.

Speaker 2:

Ah, medinah only for Havdalah.

Speaker 1:

This is stated explicitly in the Laws of Shabbat, for Kiddush it’s not brought that one talks about Kiddush. From the Laws of Shabbat, Chapter 29, Law 17: “Medinah that is mostly wine related, and even though it’s invalid for Kiddush, it’s permitted to make Havdalah on it, since it’s the chamar medinah”. So rules the Rambam.

Speaker 2:

Yes, it could be that each one individually will rule differently.

Speaker 1:

You can’t make Kiddush on chamar medinah? Shabbat morning? Only Havdalah. This is a question on wine. It’s a question, so says the Rambam. I’m telling you what the Rambam says.

Speaker 2:

At least Yom Tov Shabbat morning is a question what one must… I mean that even but it’s not what it says in the Rambam.

Speaker 1:

Okay.

Discussion: How Does One Make the Seder Without Wine?

Speaker 1:

Let’s stand here for a second.

Kiddush, okay, one makes Kiddush on bread. Besides this he makes the whole Seder. What does he do? He eats bread on Shabbat. What is “and he does everything according to this order”? That means, you think that the Rambam leaves out the four cups, but he does everything like us?

Speaker 2:

I guess.

Speaker 1:

He doesn’t make any in place of, I mean, he doesn’t make any… or he eats a piece of meat instead of the…

Speaker 2:

He doesn’t make up.

Problem: The Seder When One Eats Matzah Immediately

Speaker 1:

It’s a bit complicated, because what does one do with the matzah? One must eat immediately, and it doesn’t go in order. Do you understand the problem?

Speaker 2:

Ah, there’s already no order, because it’s already washed, it’s already before.

Speaker 1:

Yes, you’re already holding after Urchatz, Motzi Matzah.

He says, he brings that the Rif says matzah.

Speaker 2:

Perhaps one doesn’t eat it, one eats later?

The Rif’s Position

Speaker 1:

He says, this is what he brings from the Rif. The Rambam doesn’t say. The Rambam only says an order like this, it’s a bit strange. The holy Rif says that one does eat a piece of matzah, one makes an eating of matzah also by Kiddush, and later one eats only without a blessing in order. So says the holy… so he brings from the Rif. The Rambam doesn’t say, but seemingly he also means that one should do this, because one is already eating matzah. It’s not proper in order like this, he must make an eating of matzah immediately. So it comes out.

Dispute: Whether One Can Make Kiddush on Bread on Seder Night

Speaker 1:

But the short version is that the Rambam said, and brought from the Rif, Piskei Ri”d, that one can make kiddush on bread on the night of the Seder, against other authorities who argued that one cannot.

Speaker 2:

And according to them what is it? What should one do?

Speaker 1:

Bread. One should do nothing. One should not make any kiddush. One eats, but according to them one continues with the other mitzvos, and one does it in order. But they don’t hold that “Talmud Aruch” is the order, but that it’s also a Yom Tov meal, just like every Yom Tov. But so be it.

This was the argument, it seems, of the other authorities.

Discussion: Is the First Cup “Kiddush” or Just One of the Four Cups?

Speaker 1:

As the Rebbe Eichele says, and he says that since it’s four cups, it’s not kiddush. Should I say that the first one is also not kiddush? Should I say so? Should I say so? Because the Rambam said… “Kol kos v’kos mevarech alav bracha bifnei atzmo”. I don’t know, I haven’t seen the language “kos rishon omer alav kiddush hayom”. I think he wanted to emphasize that it’s four cups, because each one is a different thing. One is a cup of blessing for bentching, one is a cup of blessing for… One could ask like “ein osin mitzvos chavilos chavilos”. If there’s a mitzvah of four cups, then four cups has nothing to do with kiddush. Okay, I don’t know, I can’t be so sure from one… But the Rambam when he says “kol kos v’kos mevarech alav bracha bifnei atzmo”, what does “mevarech alav bracha bifnei atzmo” mean? That one says four times “borei pri hagafen”? That’s obvious by itself. I don’t believe that’s what he means.

Speaker 2:

But there was the Rav”n, I mean, I don’t know, I haven’t seen such a thing. I haven’t exactly seen that this means that. But what are you saying, should I say so? Should I say so?

Speaker 1:

I think one learns this way, that “on each one he blesses borei pri hagafen”. “On each one”, not that this is the main thing the Rambam wants to say here.

Explanation: The Rambam’s Approach to the Four Cups

Speaker 1:

In short, the Rambam said that it’s indeed four cups, but it’s four cups, meaning two of the four cups one would have needed anyway every Shabbos and Yom Tov meal: the kiddush and the Birchas HaMazon, the cup of blessing. So you could want to say that only two were added. But no, the order is that there should be four, and the order is thus.

It could truly be, it could truly be that the one who says this doesn’t mean to say this. He means altogether to say that one must bring wine, because there’s an obligation of four cups, even without kiddush. Perhaps one doesn’t need to, one can fulfill it this way, but for the four cups one needs to. I don’t know, perhaps he doesn’t mean to say this at all. Secondly, it could be that one might perhaps think the exact opposite, that just as with kiddush one can fulfill it with bread, the later language in Eruvin, perhaps there is lechatchila, we learned that it could be that one holds that perhaps the four cups also one can fulfill with bread if one wants.

Four Cups with Chamar Medina: The Rema’s Approach and the Dispute About What is Chamar Medina

The Distinction Between Kiddush and Four Cups

Speaker 1: They mean altogether to say that one must bring wine, because there’s an obligation of four cups, in the context of kiddush. Perhaps one doesn’t need to, one can fulfill it this way, but for the four cups one needs to. I know, I understand, perhaps he doesn’t mean to say this at all.

Secondly, it could be that one will think the exact opposite. Just as with kiddush one can fulfill it with bread, at least bedieved, perhaps even lechatchila, they learned that it could be an obligation. Perhaps the four cups also one can fulfill with bread, if one wants to need… four breads.

But with kiddush the word “cup” doesn’t appear at all, it says kiddush. Kiddush lechatchila, bedieved is with bread. Four cups is four cups. There’s a thing of cups, kos yeshuos. There’s a Rambam apparently here, Erech HaNeiros is here, but there’s also a mitzvah of kiddush, and he doesn’t have four cups.

So, are you sure?

Speaker 2: Okay, you’re sure is too sure, no problem.

Speaker 1: I’m sure with having a good reasoning. Sure never means that one can test it in a lab. So the others will learn that once it’s called four cups, it’s only relevant when it’s actually cups.

The Story of Rabbi Eliyahu Chaim Meisel

Speaker 1: Okay. So now I catch that the story of Rabbi Eliyahu Chaim Meisel, I’ve always told it not so well. I told it that he said one must clarify. Now I immediately knew that one cannot. Yes? Not so simple.

There’s a… the Rema says even that one can bedieved. Bedieved on all cups or only kiddush?

Speaker 2: What difference are you talking about regarding taam pagum? On all cups or only kiddush?

Speaker 1: On all cups.

Speaker 2: Ah.

The Rema’s Approach: Chamar Medina for Four Cups

Speaker 1: The… if one will look, if one will learn Shulchan Aruch, it would be a nice thing to learn after Pesach, one would see what the later authorities said about this. And it says thus, in Mishna Berura, there’s a whole siman here about this. In Mishna Berura, the Mechaber says that one makes Hamotzi, one makes achilas matza. There are other approaches, there are those who say that perhaps one should change the whole order, there are other ways that one can do. Even according to the side that one can yes, there are different approaches that one can do. In short, he rules thus.

And the Rema says thus, you hear? The Rema brings, “In a place where they are accustomed to make a drink from honey (mead) one can use for the four cups when one doesn’t have wine”. But he says, “And there are those who say that one cannot”, as it says in the laws of kiddush. “And regarding the four cups there’s a dispute about kiddush whether one needs wine”. We learned that the Rambam says certainly that kiddush doesn’t help chamar medina. It seems that others said in siman 272 that one can yes. Says the Rema…

Speaker 2: Is wine chamar medina, or is mead something else? Like you want to say that brandy is something else because it has the name wine?

Speaker 1: No, no, I don’t know. “And one can rely on the one who says regarding the four cups, that it’s permitted lechatchila according to the one who says that one makes kiddush on other drinks that are chamar medina, as will be explained above siman 272”. You understand? So the holy Rema says precisely that one can yes make the four cups on mead.

Speaker 2: And what does it say in siman 272?

Speaker 1: I didn’t know the proof. I’ll understand, I opened it up with this. You won’t tell me “see siman 272”. No, here he’s speaking literally from Mishna Berura, he doesn’t have wine.

Siman 272: Kiddush on Beer

Speaker 1: It says thus, “There are those who say that one makes kiddush on beer, and there are those who say that one doesn’t make kiddush. And the Rosh at night no, only bread, and in the morning it’s good”. Hagah, “And the custom is simply like the Rosh, that at night one makes on bread, and in the morning beer”.

What is the… yes… what is the… what is the reasoning?

Discussion: Is Four Cups the Same as Kiddush?

Speaker 2: But these are two different questions: one whether one makes kiddush, and one whether one makes four cups. You’re saying that the Rema says that one makes four cups on chamar medina?

Speaker 1: Yes, the Rema says that it’s the same. The Rema doesn’t say any distinction. He doesn’t say that one can make four cups on bread, but he says yes, according to the same approach… The Rema argues that according to the same one who says that one can make kiddush on chamar medina, he also says about the four cups that one can.

Speaker 2: Why does one think what is the matter? The matter is the cups. One can argue, one can say that one cannot, it’s not the same.

Speaker 1: But so says the holy Rema, that it’s also good for a poor person. At least a great poor person. So that’s the story. You understand?

Speaker 2: Yes, wonderful.

Speaker 1: In short, this is the point regarding the Rema’s approach. From here I don’t know whether… The Rema says, therefore according to everyone one should rely on what we say, why so? Because there’s no choice, because either he doesn’t have, he wants to make a meal, he wants that he shouldn’t make a meal.

The Magen Avraham and Pri Megadim

Speaker 1: He even wants to say, the Pri Megadim, the Magen Avraham, that even if all year one eats wine, but on Pesach one drinks mead. Pesach changes mead? Why? Perhaps, as the Rema says, that on Pesach there are distinctions, it’s better to make on this.

I’ll just add to you, that on Shabbos the Rosh ruled thus, that if one has Friday night one should rather make on bread than on chamar medina. Because with bread there’s a Gemara that one can, not everyone agrees that one can make kiddush on chamar medina. But on Pesach there are those who say that one cannot on bread, therefore one should rather make on borscht kiddush.

So says the holy… the Magen Avraham says Amar Rav Hamnuna, this is in liquorice, I don’t know what this is, like apple drink.

Speaker 2: Licorice.

Speaker 1: What is this? This is made from licorice.

Speaker 2: Licorice is the candy?

Speaker 1: Licorice is the candy, but from the same thing one makes arak. I tasted arak, no? I tasted arak, it’s not a good taste.

In short, I don’t know, he tells me, says the Magen Avraham that one can use on the other cups. So, the Magen Avraham says, you know, why the others are so sure that not, I don’t know.

In short, this is the approach of Magen Avraham. Others don’t agree with this. Why aren’t they agreeing? I don’t know. We’ll see what Rav Epstein says.

In short, yes, he brings indeed the halacha. Laws of Pesach, okay. The Magen Avraham permits, he says that it requires investigation.

Piskei Teshuvos: The Contemporary Poskim

Speaker 1: In short, in practice, the Ashkenazic Piskei Teshuvos, from the collective of later authorities, said that one can yes make kiddush on chamar medina.

I don’t know about milk, in practice does milk work?

Speaker 2: No.

Speaker 1: Yes, but he’s talking about milk. Milk is certainly not chamar medina, I mean it’s not an important thing. Or yes? Milk is milk. It’s not a thing that one drinks for the sake of drinking, I don’t know. It’s not a beverage.

Speaker 2: Well, what is it? What is milk? A beverage. Something that one does when one comes.

Speaker 1: Yes, I didn’t know that one can be kosher with this. It’s one of the seven liquids.

Speaker 2: Yes, but it’s not a drink. Chamar medina means something that one distributes at meals to drink. Milk is not… what is a breakfast? Does one distribute milk? No, one only has people. Milk is for children.

Speaker 1: Okay, I don’t know. Okay.

The Dispute: What is Chamar Medina?

Speaker 1: In short, here it doesn’t say about milk, but chamar medina is precisely yes, the Rema says that one can use. But I’m sure that one cannot use milk for chamar medina, I’ll check in the halacha. Yes, I don’t believe. I don’t believe.

Coffee yes?

Speaker 2: Perhaps. Is coffee an important thing, chamar medina? Perhaps. You’re talking about everything that’s an alcoholic beverage, you’re not talking about things that one gives simply. For pleasure, not for expanding the intestines, you understand?

Speaker 1: Whatever, what is the meaning of the Magen Avraham. I’ve never yet seen that one drinks, one goes to a restaurant, one gets a cup of milk. It’s not such a thing. It’s not a drink.

Speaker 2: Also shame, I mean, you’re now making yourself strong from other things, not necessarily what one drinks for a meal.

Speaker 1: Yes, he brings that the Geonim said that one is not yotzei with milk. But the contemporary ones have yes said… the Aruch HaShulchan, Igros Moshe, Tzitz Eliezer, they say yes, one can milk. Everything except water. Coffee, milk. It doesn’t make sense. Also Rav Yechezkel I heard thus. Orange juice, Coke. It doesn’t have to be necessarily an alcoholic beverage.

Speaker 2: Ani Yitzchak, I don’t agree. Only Elisha’s support. I can’t drink this. Orange juice I can’t drink. I won’t agree.

Speaker 1: Chamar medina means the wine of the country, it doesn’t mean the grape juice of the country. This all started from the fact that one drinks grape juice.

Speaker 2: True, orange juice is relevant. I mean, I don’t make natural things from grapes. If grape juice is there, I agree. If this is there, one hundred percent. If one makes orange juice, I would say it’s a forgery of the world.

Speaker 1: Moreover, it’s not wine. It’s not wine. Most people don’t drink alcohol, only on a special occasion. They don’t drink alcohol. You become a person who drinks alcohol, and at night this is a forgery. But a person who goes to a restaurant in the morning, one doesn’t give him alcohol. One gives him coffee, milk, orange juice, he’ll take what he wants to drink.

Speaker 2: It’s not a meal, in the morning is not a meal. I don’t know what you’re talking about now. At night one gives yes alcohol. Every normal person.

Speaker 1: I’m not talking about small children, “we raise infants of one day”. Because everyone is at the level of infants. It already says, the Rema already said, “we raise infants of one day”. One who is exempt, who doesn’t have the wine, he is exempt. He is in the category of infants of one day. One who is exempt, he is exempt from the whole thing. Simple.

He is exempt. He is exempt. He is exempt.

Chamar medina means an alcoholic beverage. But he is exempt. He doesn’t have the wine. He is in the category of infants, “we raise infants of one day”. And one must however think practically, how it was once and how it is today. Apparently, alcoholic beverages one doesn’t need a fridge. The alcoholic beverages have already gone through fermentation.

Discussion About Wine, Grape Juice, and Chamar Medina for Four Cups; Laws About Maror and Matza Shemura

Wine vs. Grape Juice for Four Cups and Kiddush

Speaker 1:

All these other things one had… very soon apparently means this: You squeeze out an orange, you can drink it. A day later that orange is no longer masters. It’s a thing that becomes sour, it becomes moldy. And this is called very soon, such a thing that one can squeeze out and drink.

But in modern times there’s a whole industry. It’s fake. In modern times the whole world is fake. It means nothing. Fake people are exempt from the entire Torah. I said that I’m also fake. I say that the people are exempt. I didn’t say that I’m not fake.

People who buy a lulav from plastic… We’re talking about normal people, not the people who buy a lulav from plastic. We’re talking about the people who are suspected of being fake, and they are idol worshippers with the mitzvos. The people who go with a sheitel and they don’t know that it’s forbidden, are exempt from the entire Torah. I said that I’m also fake. I say that the people are exempt. I didn’t say that I’m not fake.

People who buy a lulav from plastic… We’re talking about a normal thing. Wine. The habits of drinking and the habits of… have changed a bit. That means you can drink. Okay, okay. Go ahead and behold. You know this? Further, further. Further, before that. Further, further.

Is one with a covenant verkest gevelech. Drink wine? Everyone today drinks wine and while. Everyone today… laugh. Most Muslim people, sick people. Drink injures. Hello? Not coffee at all. Milk. Okay, let’s go further. Okay.

Muslims! Don’t drink wine. Also Breslovers, Rebbe Nachman allows. I see all these people, because they are such weak people, that from one cup of wine they become crazy. Or a bachur who wants to drive, hello, a free person doesn’t drive today, the Rebbe says one may not drive.

In short, the Torah was given for the aristocratic party beautiful ones, who always drink wine. Well, well, what do you say, are you talking about the am ha’aretz? I’m still here for the masses, for the beloved people. All the amei ha’aretz are exempt, exempt from everything. What should one yes do? Not drink orange juice.

The whole idea of the Seder is, even if you’re not an aristocrat, pretend to be an aristocrat. With orange juice? At the Seder it’s clear that one drinks grape juice, because one wants something that is intoxicating.

Grape juice, a dispute of the poskim. Look into the poskim, you’ll see that one is not yotzei with grape juice. It’s not even a doubt. But other chamar medina one is yotzei. Grape juice one is not yotzei. Grape juice is degrading.

The people who don’t keep Shabbos and indeed have questions and light an electric menorah, they should drink grape juice. All other Jews should drink wine, and if it’s heavy wine, one should mix it with water.

I don’t understand normal people, why do you think you must drink the heavy wine that was given? I would say that in modern times one should rather drink a cup of grape juice than some watery cup that you won’t drink even when you’re asked.

You’re going to give him a glass of wine that’s thirty percent wine, and I poured in a bunch of water, and say “give it to the melamed.” That’s called in English a cocktail.

Speaker 2:

A cocktail of seventy percent water and a little wine? Not plain water! Oh gosh! They’re doing this to us. Let me finish with wine. A cocktail you make with vodka, you add cranberry juice.

Speaker 1:

Okay, okay, let’s sit and search for things. Look on Google, you’ll see that it does exist. And there’s very much wine that’s already mixed from the start. A wine cocktail is if there are a few types of wine.

In short, the imagination, instead of knowledge, is very good. I have great pleasure from this process of imagination instead of knowledge.

The reality is that Pesach is made for drinking wine. The same thing kiddush and havdalah and all these things. Whoever wants to be such a modern Reform Jew, let him be a Reform Jew, no problem. But to drink grape juice makes a mockery of humanity, in terms of their honor. And certainly wine that’s already completely washed with water…

Speaker 2:

Have you actually tried to wash wine with water?

Speaker 1:

Today there’s seltzer, it’s very good.

Speaker 2:

Tried?

Speaker 1:

Yes. It depends which wine. At home I ask you, which is good. What’s the plan? You make seltzer so fancy. Certainly that’s much better than grape juice. It’s probably, I understand what you’re saying. Grape juice is a disgrace. I hear, okay.

Now, what’s the plan? You want to be yotzei? You’re going to Gan Eden? You don’t go to Gan Eden at all. It’s a whole thing why one is yotzei. How is one yotzei? You go to Gan Eden. But you don’t go to Gan Eden. You don’t go to Gan Eden. Drink grape juice, you don’t go to Gan Eden. Drink other things, drink coffee, there’s no difference.

If you want to fulfill what the Chachamim wanted, that one should make a joyful seudah, you’re certainly not yotzei with grape juice and all these things.

Okay, now let’s continue learning in the Rambam.

Halacha 13: One Who Doesn’t Have Karpas — Only Maror

Speaker 1:

What does a Jew do who doesn’t have karpas, he only has maror, yes? He uses maror also for karpas, he makes “Elokeinu Melech HaOlam borei pri ha’adamah.”

Wait a minute, he does this, he makes both, and later… Earlier we saw that on the maror one doesn’t make borei pri ha’adamah, only on the karpas. He doesn’t have karpas. He now makes both? And when he finishes…

Why shouldn’t we say for such a person that he should only eat maror after the matzah? Why should he have the maror at the beginning of the meal at all? He doesn’t have karpas. What’s the problem? Who does it bother?

Speaker 2:

No, no, the problem is… Who does it bother that he eats maror?

Speaker 1:

There’s no obligation that one should eat maror later. It’s just like a seder. Okay, here we’ll maintain the seder in karpas. It’s not. Just as we saw two minutes ago regarding the matzah. The Rambam didn’t say it, but one can actually eat the matzah right away. It’s just, one needs to make a change, so one eats again before the change. One can do it backwards, you understand?

Certainly the normal way is like this, but it doesn’t hurt at all when you do it backwards. Granted, he says, granted, he eats maror, later he eats without a blessing, because he already made the blessing.

Another halacha, what if someone doesn’t have enough matzah? Yes, “until he finishes the Haggadah he makes a blessing on the matzah and eats, and returns and eats from the maror without a blessing.”

Why the “returns and eats”? It’s clear to return to the seder, because for the same reason one would always have to eat twice properly. What does that mean? One should say why one eats yes… Okay.

Now, um… Let’s see a Gemara, very simple… Yes… Why does the Rambam say here “and eats matzah”? I don’t know! Because he has to eat matzah! The novelty is when he comes to the maror, he eats without a blessing. I don’t know why he says… The “makes a blessing on the matzah and eats it” is a different language. It doesn’t really come in here.

Thirteen… yes… thirteen… But the Rambam is good, because the karpas one also dips in charoset. But he has a question whether he should dip the first time maror in salt water or in charoset.

Speaker 2:

Who asked here?

Speaker 1:

No, I’m asking. Take… take, okay, do both. So says indeed the Sefer HaMenuach, the Rabbeinu Menuach, that one must do it twice because of the same heiker hatinokot.

One sees clearly that the blessing is not a hefsek, as always, and one doesn’t need to make borei pri ha’adamah. But what do we see from here? We already see it in… It was written there explicitly, there was a whole explanation, because he knew that one makes borei pri ha’adamah, but one needs to say again borei pri ha’adamah by the maror.

Speaker 2:

Yes, okay. It wasn’t written explicitly.

Speaker 1:

No, ah, here it says “without a blessing,” yes, yes. That’s the intention in a custom. It doesn’t say explicitly that one makes probably what you said earlier. Okay, very good.

Halacha 14: Matzah Shemurah — Order of Eating

Speaker 1:

One who eats matzah shemurah every kezayit, and in order to do so, the custom is to eat matzah that isn’t shemurah. But the mitzvah one must have the main thing should be the kezayit should be the matzah shemurah. That means, one is not yotzei with matzah shemurah lishmah. One is not yotzei achilat matzah.

And it continues like this, why does he eat this way? The end he says, “so that the taste of matzah that isn’t shemurah shouldn’t mix, he makes a blessing on eating matzah and eats a kezayit, and afterwards eats from it as he wishes.”

Why? Isn’t the end one needs to eat differently at the end?

Speaker 2:

Yes, why?

Speaker 1:

Why should he eat first make hamotzi and eat the matzah without achilat matzah, and one isn’t yotzei with it? One isn’t yotzei why not?

Speaker 2:

Perhaps like “nochal al hasova” like the Pesach?

Speaker 1:

Yes, but every time one doesn’t do it that way. One doesn’t make the afikoman the second piece. Why? I don’t understand clearly why. I don’t understand clearly why. I don’t understand clearly why.

It comes out that the second matzah is specifically a matzah of mitzvah according to the halacha. The afikoman, the second piece, is a second piece. He already says completely different things. I don’t see here. Ah, no, he’s talking about later. He’s talking here, but he’s talking about other things, he comes with other chiddushim.

I want to know the matter, why, why does it come out implied here as if the normal one makes without achilat matzah, but it actually also applies to the afikoman, to the second kezayit. The end matzah is which matzah? What’s the meaning here?

Because now one eats with “al matzot umarorim.” Not matzah alone. So it’s a zecher of “al matzot umarorim.” Which? The end? The afikoman? Why is it important? What does it come in with “al matzot umarorim”?

Discussion on the Main Mitzvah of Matzah, Afikoman, and the Law of Sleeping During the Meal

The Two Kezeitim of Matzah — Which Is the Main Mitzvah?

It comes out implied here as if the normal achilat matzah also applies to the afikoman, to the second kezayit.

The first matzah is the main matzah. Because it’s implied here… because now one has with “al achilat marorim.” It’s not implied that one says “zecher laMikdash” on the “al achilat marorim.” Which? The first, the main afikoman.

Why is this so important? Why doesn’t one say “al achilat marorim”? Why does one say “zecher laMikdash”? Why doesn’t one say “zecher laMikdash” the second time? I don’t understand.

Every time one eats matzah, one eats matzah, afterwards one eats maror with a whole seder, afterwards one eats another piece of matzah, so that what? One shouldn’t be mafasik on this, yes? So that one can do with this “ein maftirin achar haPesach,” “achar hamatzah,” afikoman, yes? Right? That’s what one does normally.

The Rambam’s Halacha: “And If He Only Has a Kezayit”

What was written earlier? Yes, “and if he only has a kezayit, he eats it at the end.” What does that mean? That he eats a kezayit matzah, so that there shouldn’t be a hefsek within the time of eating it, and this is the mitzvah. It comes out that the main mitzvat matzah, even though he already made a blessing “al achilat matzah,” is no problem, it’s not a hefsek. It’s still the blessing. “Al achilat matzah” one also makes on the afikoman.

What Is the Matter of Afikoman?

What is the matter of afikoman? It’s not called afikoman, the matzah that one eats at the end. After the matzah is already a mitzvah, and one doesn’t interrupt. Eh, he already ate matzah earlier? I don’t know exactly what that matzah was, he was already yotzei once.

And here you see, if someone doesn’t have kosher matzah, so what does he do? He should eat the kosher matzah at the first. Ah, perhaps the explanation is different. If he would have eaten it at the beginning, he wouldn’t have been allowed to eat anything afterwards. Perhaps that’s the simple reason. Not the simple explanation that it doesn’t need anything. He needs to be yotzei the mitzvah of shulchan orech, that he eats in honor of Yom Tov. Yes, he would have been hungry, I don’t know. He wouldn’t have been able to eat anything. It’s just a problem. One was hungry. Granted, because the rule is that one ate the matzah of mitzvah.

The Question: Why Two Matzot of Mitzvah?

What is our solution? That one should make two matzah of mitzvah. It’s a bit funny. I want to answer the funny thing. How can one make two? One already ate a kezayit. It’s the… I don’t understand clearly. But that’s what… Perhaps that’s the reason.

Speaker 2: No. But this is also. One sees that there must be a kezayit at once. So one can’t do that one should start a little from this. A little? When half a kezayit is half a kezayit. But, each thing.

Speaker 1: No. It needs a chiddush, will? Each one needs to be a kezayit properly. Year, in practice.

Speaker 2: Ah. It’s not supposed to come which the sport. It’s not any business… because funny…

Discussion About Korech

Speaker 1: And the Rav says that afterwards one should also eat in the korech, and the world says that otherwise one doesn’t catch exactly. But what’s the explanation of the whole thing? That korech can one be yotzei from others? So the Rosh says indeed… that the Rosh brings that he says that the brains speaks in the time of the Temple, when one needs to eat the Pesach and matzah and maror. But in the time that here perhaps it should be opposite. One should eat the first kezayit al hasova. Al hayom, please even. It needs to be like a doubt from the obligation with al hasova. Becomes. What does one need to eat? Becomes one needs to calculate. I already ate. I’m not al hasova. But still with al hasova.

Speaker 2: No, no, no. No, no. That doesn’t work. Obligation was to be the righteous. One loses a whole Pesach offering, the whole business and the whole thing. That’s al hasova. They don’t go both. One can’t have both together.

Speaker 1: He says that here a dispute is indeed wicked, and the Rashbam learns that the main thing of matzah is like this, he says. I further worry, it needs to be the second. Others learn, so the Rosh or otherwise or. It’s the summary that the holy wise one, who is the planner. Because hard the until a Jew. One each. I need to learn in other sources and understand. The Rambam’s language is funny. Not funny, I need to understand what’s the explanation in this. It’s long, it’s a Gemara. It’s exactly this in the Gemara.

There’s a matter.

“Memalei Kreiso” — The Question of Hunger and the Meal

It says “memalei kreiso,” one also waits “kezayit matzah ba’achronah.” So they understood the sources of the Rambam.

The question is, why is it more important that he should first eat from the matzah she’einah shemurah so that he should have a meal? He should start simply with a motzi?

Again, there are two questions. This is what I wanted to know until now. Or because always the main matzah one needs to do at the end, so when does one make… He only has one matzah shemurah. Why should one eat matzah she’einah shemurah at all? Why shouldn’t one only eat matzah shemurah? Because he’s hungry. It’s a chiddush.

Again, what is this? Do you want to say differently? That he should only eat one piece of matzah, and only eat one maror, and afterwards shulchan orech. At the beginning he should wash, he makes a motzi al achilat matzah with all things. But he’s going to eat the chicken soup with the maror, he’s not going to eat any matzah she’einah shemurah. He’s not going to eat any matzah she’einah shemurah at all.

Speaker 2: It doesn’t say anything about chicken soup, that’s the whole halacha. It says about… he’s hungry, about that.

Speaker 1: But only because he’s hungry? That’s what I want to know. Only because he’s hungry? Or there’s a matter that he should eat so that he should start the meal why he’s here, he should start with a motzi. With what? He can start and finish with a motzi. I don’t understand. Is he being told to do something that’s called for the hamotzi? That was what I wanted to ask. You say that it’s talking because he’s hungry. I understand what you’re saying, that’s an academy, and he doesn’t have now something to eat.

Speaker 2: The Gemara says “memalei kreiso mimenu,” because he’s hungry. The word doesn’t mean to him so that they should continue with the seder.

Discussion About the Order of Maror

Speaker 1: Which seder? I’m not sure. Seder of the community? Wait a minute, seder here about maror? Did you find something about maror in this Rambam or in the Gemara?

Speaker 2: No. Already.

Speaker 1: It doesn’t say what the order of maror is. We learned earlier, I mean, we learned a minute ago that one can eat maror before the hamotzi. I don’t know clearly. There are other people who say that there’s such an order that one must eat the maror after the matzah for some reason. I don’t know why. Perhaps the maror of the korban Pesach one needs to eat afterwards, but the maror that one eats today, which is a mitzvah to eat maror, I don’t know why one must eat afterwards.

Return to the Main Question: When Should One Eat the Kosher Matzah?

There are two matters. Or because he needs… or because… The question is when should I eat the kosher matzah. This is as if the question. I only have one piece of kosher matzah. When should I eat it? It says here that one should eat it at the end. Not only once, but at the end. Why should I eat it at the end? It’s the Rambam, so that he should remain with the taste of matzah until the end, yes? Apparently, that’s the reason. When should I eat? Why shouldn’t I eat before, so that I should have the taste of matzah?

Or can you say, if what comes out is always that this is the dry matzah, that’s what comes out apparently. Or will you say, no, simply because he doesn’t have, there’s no stock, he shouldn’t be able to eat more, because what does the matter of ein maftirin achar haPesach do? I don’t know.

In short, the world that learns a lot of matzah, there aren’t all these questions. There’s no way this. 100%. And the Rambam doesn’t count out another option that can be, long interest pennies, he doesn’t have matzah and not maror nothing to be obligated with Haggadah. Apparently the answer is yes, because the Haggadah is not a law in the matzah. The Rambam says that it’s a mitzvah to eat the matzot of the Exodus from Egypt. And you don’t even need to bring it apparently.

Speaker 2: What is there a thing, you mean what’s me’akev? You need to know which are me’akev. What don’t you know?

Speaker 1: No, there are people who said yes, that what is there “bizman sheyeish matzah umaror,” they said, according to the one who learns that it means literally “bizman sheyeish matzah umaror,” he would have had to learn like this. Actually the matzah and maror. So, the Rambam didn’t say so though.

For me it’s not difficult, but others might perhaps be able to say so.

Halacha 15 — “One Who Slept and Woke Up Doesn’t Return and Eat”

Okay, “one who slept and woke up doesn’t return and eat.” What’s bad? Why may he not continue eating?

Dispute Between Rambam and Ra’avad — What Does the Law Apply To?

The Ibn Ezra says that he means to say about korban Pesach. Korban Pesach? It doesn’t say that we’re talking about korban Pesach. Funny. They had to say that we’re talking about korban Pesach.

The Mishnah says, “if some of them slept they may eat, if all of them slept they may not eat.” Rabbi Yose says, in short, the Gemara says, what are we talking about here? It doesn’t say what we’re talking about.

The Ra’avad says, yes, the Ra’avad tells us indeed. Yes, is there a Ra’avad on this side?

Speaker 2: Yes, yes.

Speaker 1: What does the Ra’avad say? What does the Ra’avad say? “Said Avraham, if Pesach one eats alone he doesn’t return and eat, and if he was distracted it’s invalidated.” He learns this explanation, that the explanation was in Pesach. “And if he didn’t eat there Pesach, he gives him the blessing of hamotzi and eats, because he has no interruption.” It’s only a question of the blessing, it’s not a question that one may not eat.

Others learned that the same law of Pesach one makes also regarding the matzah, and once one slept it ended. I don’t know.

Source — Mishnah Pesachim

One minute, three groups, **”yeshno miktzasan”**, let’s look up the halacha. If **”yeshno miktzasan”**, it’s a question of the chavurah (group). One minute, the parsha (section) speaks about Pesach, and the chavurah, if the entire chavurah fell asleep one cannot. But if a portion fell asleep, the others are as if exempt. **Nardemu kulam lo yochlu, miktzatan yochlu** (if all fell asleep they may not eat, if some fell asleep they may eat). Another leniency, if it’s only **nitnamnemu** (dozed), what did they learn? Nitnamnemu means that he… he dozes, whatever exactly it means.

In short, but what is the meaning of this entire halacha? The Ra’avad says clearly that this is only relevant to korban Pesach (the Passover offering), that’s how I understand from the Ra’avad.

Sleep on Leil HaSeder — Chavurah, Afikoman, and Hesech HaDa’as

The Disqualification of Falling Asleep by a Chavurah

This is a disqualification of the chavurah. One minute, in Pesachim it speaks of a chavurah, if the entire chavurah fell asleep one cannot eat, but if a portion, the others are in any case. “Nardemu kulan lo yochlu, miktzatan yochlu”, this is the halacha. Another leniency, if it’s only “nitnamnemu”, what we learned, “nitnamnemu” means that he dozes, whatever exactly it means.

The Ra’avad’s Position: Only Relevant to Korban Pesach

In short, but what is the meaning of this entire halacha? The Ra’avad says clearly that this is only relevant to korban Pesach. That’s how I understand from the Ra’avad. Because the Mishnah says that one eats another matzah, and he says perhaps the matter is because once one has already eaten afikoman… interesting. He says this even in this matter, because it appears during the meal, he doesn’t say here specifically after eating the last piece of matzah. But perhaps the entire meal one eats with matzah? Once one has eaten matzah and fallen asleep, the last piece of matzah that you ate was the matzah that you ate before falling asleep, that was the matzah of “ein maftirin achar hamatzah afikoman” (we do not conclude after the matzah with afikoman).

As if what is the conclusion to this? One eats another piece of matzah. So we need to understand better. Something is here that we as if didn’t understand, as we see the topic of the second matzah that one eats. Something appears from these few halachos that we’re learning here, that what?

A Fundamental Question: Can One Eat Another Piece of Afikoman?

Speaker 1:

Hilly, I want to ask you another question. You know this? Let’s say I ate the afikoman, afterwards I’m hungry. Can I eat another piece of afikoman? Seemingly the next one is your afikoman. Especially if we go with the Avnei Nezer, that one can make conditions. No, no, no, conditions are different. Conditions say that what you specifically established, and you do it according to the other opinion. But the question is whether one can cancel and say that what I ate earlier was just matzah, and now will be the afikoman.

Speaker 2:

He did very well. I think that as long as you remain with a taste of matzah in the mouth, the last piece of matzah that you eat… But if you fall asleep, very good.

Speaker 1:

That’s what you would have thought before today. Today what we learned the halacha, it doesn’t look that way. What it looks like, according to how the Magen Avraham learns in the Ra’avad, perhaps there are other opinions. According to how I understand in the Rambam, and the others, it doesn’t look that way. Why?

The Innovation: There Is Only One Achilas Matzah of Mitzvah

It appears that the meaning is, what is there an achilas mitzvah (eating of the commandment) of matzah? The achilas mitzvah can already, one is already yotzei (fulfilled). No, no, with the achilas matzah. The entire achilas matzah, one has now performed a mitzvah to eat matzah.

And one eats an entire meal after the matzah. But one eats the matzah at the end. One eats already an entire meal after the matzah, and one eats matzah the entire time. I mean already earlier, during Shulchan Orech, one eats matzah, and everything is secondary to the matzah. One already makes a blessing on the other eating. One eats matzah the entire time. Let’s take out the… You have a look… It’s terrible. If one would listen once, one wouldn’t need to speak so much. One can say each thing once.

So, one eats matzah the entire time. Certainly one can eat other things, but this isn’t that one has stopped eating matzah. If one has stopped eating matzah, one may not. That’s what it says. If one has stopped once eating matzah, one may not eat anything more. One hasn’t stopped. Like every meal, every meal of shalosh seudos (three meals), with the… I held myself in one execution. Like every meal in the world, every meal one eats matzah the entire time, bread the entire time. Everything is secondary to the bread.

What does it mean, one now eats matzah? When does one stop? Now one has stopped eating the last piece, one has stopped, and now one may not eat more. Therefore, if you fell asleep, it stopped then, one may not continue, just as one may not. And when you made the hesech hada’as (interruption of attention), whatever you want to call it, the last piece, here it ended.

If so, it’s not simple that one can eat every time. It’s not simple that the afikoman is simply one takes another piece in order to fulfill the matter of the taste of matzah. No, this is the last piece of matzah that you eat.

One can only ask a question, seemingly one isn’t yotzei with just one kezayis (olive-sized portion). It appears not. It appears that it may be that there is a minimum measure, but one can eat more. But one cannot eat as much as just another piece of matzah not for the sake of the mitzvah. It’s the matzah of mitzvah. There is one achilas matzah, there aren’t two achilos matzah.

That’s how I understand from all the halachos that we learned today. It may be other Jews learn differently from the Rambam, but that’s how I understand. That means, he doesn’t say any matter of having a taste of matzah, it’s a taste of the mitzvah. How many times can one perform one mitzvah? One can only do it once. One can do it over a long time, one can eat two pieces, two pounds of pieces.

The Rambam’s Innovations in Hilchos Berachos

He says a few great innovations, one must know that it’s true. What he says that one who eats is called bread, everyone knows this from hilchos berachos (laws of blessings), it’s not an innovation. I mean he says because the bread exempts it regarding a blessing. What does it mean he exempts it? Wait, I don’t understand what you’re saying. Because by berachos there is a law of ikar v’tafel (primary and secondary). What? No, no, it’s not ikar v’tafel.

Okay, good.

The Maggid Mishneh’s Explanation

The Maggid Mishneh makes a very nice total. I don’t even need to learn today’s work, I can put in a head. The Maggid Mishneh learned very well, and he says clearly the story. This is all the Mishnah, “shtei yados shel kedeirah” (two handles of a pot), and Rabbi Yose distinguished between simply nardemu and nitnamnemu v’nisratzeu (fell asleep and dozed and were appeased), the Rambam rules like Rabbi Yose, and he was uncertain between nardemu and nitnamnemu v’nisratzeu.

And the question is… No, no, he says that the Rambam understood that this speaks even of matzah, and therefore the proof that one wanted to bring from there was that one may not eat more because of afikoman, and the others learned that the matzah is a proof that one cannot consider oneself matzah. This is the proof, this is the proof that one wanted to bring from korban Pesach then, therefore the proof is that what? That it speaks even of matzah.

Three Opinions in the Story of Rebbi

He says that others learn that what? That the Mishnah speaks of korban Pesach, and korban Pesach is, also by korban Pesach both aren’t enough to understand what is the problem with hesech hada’as, perhaps it means something like leaving a chavurah. And it should I what teach him. It’s not clear. It didn’t come in matzah, that I at all don’t have a question here.

Opinion 1: Netilas Yadayim

The only question is, well, he needs to wash again, says Rebbi. Well, he needs to wash again, because hesech da’as requires, I say wash again. The entire structure of Torah that I said that it’s one maftirin doesn’t hold, that’s what the Magen says.

Opinion 2: Nitnamnemu

A third explanation is, that in general, one can answer perhaps this means he various commentators. What did the person do with Rebbi what he did lo yochlu? Or one can say that it means, actually, lo yochlu, nitnamnemu means, he had the entire law was whether one needs to wash again, one makes a break, it’s not any question to more goes only as Pesach.

Opinion 3: Rav Aharon HaLevi — Not Related to Pesach at All

Or one can say that it’s not at all going to Pesach! The entire he asks him a story! He dozed off! What is there we need the topic of nitnamnemu we need! But it has nothing to do at all with the law of Pesach, so said Rav Aharon HaLevi.

Right? Yes, do you understand the three opinions? The two opinions, basically. There are only three opinions about how to interpret the story of Rebbi.

A Historical Note: The Chavurah by Rebbi

He says the note from the Gra, a historical note. He says that a bed was set up by Rebbi, which he brings proofs. Because other Rishonim say that the matter is leaving the chavurah. What should that have to do? And what helps that a bed was set up there? Because what? Let’s see… And what names not the chavrei Abaye Yosef the Rav. What is the coming name? When coming? When coming? When coming name name name? There was a bed the matter is… someone sleeps. I still see, they discussed, it’s one alone, it’s a chavurah sitting together… And what? What is the coming?

I agree with the explanation of the Maggid Mishneh. It doesn’t speak specifically Pesach. I don’t see that it says automatically from Pesach. I stand to think if so sat. It’s one in an argument the east thing? Not nothing! What did he say mine how? What he said, no, I’m not mine. I’m…. just. He brought the… they discuss… it was brought the… it was brought the Mishnah. Nardemu yochlu, nitnamnemu lo yochlu. It means that there is a distinction. I’m not nardemu, I’m nitnamnemu. I… nitnamnemu.

Okay, I think that’s all the halachos.

Discussion: Do You Understand All the Halachos?

Speaker 1:

Yes? What questions do you have, and don’t understand something? Do you understand all, no? Very good what the questions. Do you understand all, true?

Speaker 2:

Yes, very. The truth hasn’t the understood. Not very.

Speaker 1:

Now we haven’t at all finished long, now we only finished, what we do, if one hasn’t or one sleeps.

Proofs from Purim: Drinking and Sleeping

It appears, ah, this is another proof, if you want already yes, you want to bring proofs from my Purim Torah, to see, that what what comes in, well, well, well. How much one has gotten drunk a bit, one fell asleep, certainly. One sees, that well, well… ah, one has it says also but Christmas. Okay, it would one says up. Wake up, one has I I I I I sleep.

Why Does One Sleep on Leil HaSeder?

Because what comes in by the nitnamnemu Pesach and at night? One has already drunk two cups. It’s something so… It should sleep, yes? The entire questions begin. Because what comes in in chavuros one eats Pesach and sleeps? It’s already entire questions… It’s already story, how many, Egyptians, cups, stories. They kept themselves up with telling and stories, so that tomorrow can be able to fall asleep, that they not more continue with the Seder. It’s already the main matter of sleeping and not sleeping. And something goes therefore that one shouldn’t sleep, because what? Because it’s hard to rest, we let sleep, not can one still catch more olive-sized portions and olive-sized portions.

Ah, actually in the moment that one falls asleep the entire thing has ended, and one cannot do anything.

The Story of the Exodus from Egypt and the Matter of Not Sleeping

Halacha 7 (Continued) — “And Whoever Tells About the Exodus from Egypt Is Praiseworthy”

“V’chol hamesaper b’yetzias Mitzrayim harei zeh meshubach. Kol oso halayla” (And whoever tells about the exodus from Egypt is praiseworthy. All that night) — the fathers kept themselves up with telling stories. So it goes that one should fall asleep that one shouldn’t be able to continue more with the Seder.

In short, you have a matter of sleeping and not sleeping. And something goes here before from the… ah, one shouldn’t sleep. Because what? Because one loses… as long as one doesn’t sleep one can still catch more olive-sized portions and olive-sized portions, who knows. Ah, until when you go to sleep, the entire thing is finished, and one cannot… one cannot sell.

Okay. So, until here the topic.