📋 Shiur Overview
Summary — End of Laws of Chametz and Matzah: The Text of the Haggadah Customary Among Israel in the Time of Exile
—
A. Why Does the Rambam Bring the Text of the Haggadah?
The Rambam brings at the end of Laws of Chametz and Matzah the text of the Haggadah customary among Israel in the time of exile.
Simple explanation: The Rambam’s Mishneh Torah is meant to be the only book (besides Tanach) that a Jew needs to have. Therefore he includes practical texts — the text of prayer (Sefer Ahavah), texts for the High Holidays, festivals, and here the text of the Haggadah. After he has already described in the laws (chapters 7-8) the order and mentioned the prayers, but not brought the full text, he brings here the entire text.
Novel points:
1) Whether the text is a ruling or merely a practical transcription: A major inquiry is raised (which was already touched upon regarding the text of prayer in Sefer Ahavah): whether the Rambam’s text is a halachic ruling — that this is the correct text for all of Israel — or merely a practical transcription of what was practiced in Egypt in his time. It is held as reasonable that the Rambam viewed it as a ruling — he wrote what he understood as the “comprehensive text” for all Jews, not just a local custom.
2) Proof that the Rambam selected — Dayeinu, Rabbi Yose HaGelili: The Rambam knew of passages like “Dayeinu” and the exposition of Rabbi Yose HaGelili (the passages that come at the end of “Arami oved avi”). He even alluded to it in the laws (chapter 8) with the language that one “extends.” But he did not write it into the text. The reason: he held that this is not a “general text” — not the custom of all Israel, but rather an addition/piyyut. One can say it, it’s a nice thing, but it’s not part of the formal Haggadah. “Dayeinu” is viewed as a kind of piyyut/singing, perhaps something that was sung at shulchan orech, but not a formal part of the Haggadah. This itself is proof that the Rambam actively selected — he didn’t simply transcribe what he found, but rather he decided what belongs.
3) Practical ramification — students of the Rambam: If the text is a ruling, then one who wants to conduct himself according to the Rambam must say the Rambam’s text (also in prayer). If it’s only a custom-transcription, let each person follow his own custom. The Brisker Rav identified himself as “a Rambam Jew” — the Brisker family (Rav Chaim, Rav Velvel) conducted many laws according to the Rambam, even in disputed laws. But when someone asked the Brisker Rav to say a text according to the Rambam, he answered: “That is Nusach Sefard, we pray Nusach Ashkenaz.” It is noted that this is perhaps not correct — it could be the Rambam would indeed want one to follow his text, because it’s a halachic determination.
4) A possible answer — “customary among Israel” doesn’t mean a ruling: One could argue that the Rambam doesn’t say “this is the correct text because I have so determined,” but rather “thus was customary among Israel.” Therefore a Jew in 5787 should look at what is customary among Israel today — what his father, his father-in-law, his community practices. But this is rejected: if the Rambam looked at it this way, he wouldn’t have written the text at all — he would have said “ask the bentchers, look in the siddur.” The Rambam has a concept of a formal text that the Sages established. Perhaps he held strongly by the principle of lo titgodedu — that all Jews should have one text.
5) Distinction between law and text: In the laws (chapter 8) it states that one can expound the verses of “Arami oved avi” — this is a law of doresh kol haparasha (Mishnah). But the specific text of how one expounds is a custom, not a law. An individual who expounds differently on his own fulfills the obligation from the standpoint of law, but not from the standpoint of custom. The text becomes “somewhat more formalized” — there is a formal text that the Sages made for the time of exile.
—
B. The Title: “The Text of the Haggadah Customary Among Israel in the Time of Exile”
The Rambam writes: “The text of the Haggadah customary among Israel in the time of exile.”
Simple explanation: The Rambam limits the text to “in the time of exile” — this is the text for our time, not for the time of the Temple.
Novel points:
1) “In the time of exile” — specifically: The Rambam writes specifically “in the time of exile” because there are things in this text that are only relevant in the time of exile (like “next year in the land of Israel”). Although the Rambam writes laws of sacrifices (for the Messianic era), he did not write a text of the Haggadah for the time of the Temple — because then there will be a Sanhedrin that will make a text. Regarding laws the Rambam has a source (Gemara, principles of ruling), but regarding text he doesn’t have the authority to rule for a time that doesn’t yet exist.
2) [Digression: “Next year in Jerusalem”]: Among Mizrachists and Chabad chassidim there is a question whether to say “next year in the land of Israel” when one is already sitting in the Land of Israel. Chabad chassidim don’t say “rebuilt” (because it’s not yet rebuilt). Whoever lives in Jerusalem and says “next year in Jerusalem” — a sharp opinion is quoted that he is “a speaker of falsehoods.” One must mean it literally (the heavenly Jerusalem, the rebuilt Jerusalem, and the like).
—
C. “Bivhilu” / “Ha Lachma Anya”
The Rambam’s text: “Bivhilu yatzanu miMitzrayim, ha lachma anya di achalu avhatana be’ara deMitzrayim” (or: “denafki me’ara deMitzrayim”).
Simple explanation: “Bivhilu” = in haste. The text begins at the second cup. “Ha lachma anya” — this is the bread of affliction that our fathers ate.
Novel points:
1) Dispute of texts — “be’ara deMitzrayim” vs. “denafki me’ara deMitzrayim”: In Rav Sheilat’s edition it says “be’ara deMitzrayim” (like our Haggadah). In the Yemenite text it says “denafki me’ara deMitzrayim” (= when they went out from Egypt). Yemenites very often wrote their own text into Rambam manuscripts. The principle that “the Yemenite text is the most precise Rambam” is fine for laws (where there were good copyists), but for the text of prayer/Haggadah it’s not as convincing — because copyists naturally wrote in the text they were accustomed to saying.
2) The difficult question on “be’ara deMitzrayim”: How can one say “bread of affliction that was eaten in Egypt”? In Egypt they didn’t eat matzah — matzah came only at the exodus! It is mentioned that there were two types of matzah: (a) matzah that was eaten with the Korban Pesach in Egypt (before the exodus), (b) matzah from “their dough did not have time to rise” (at the exodus). This is a “forced answer.” The Ibn Ezra (brought in commentaries on the Haggadah) speaks about this. The variant reading “denafki” is essentially a solution to the problem. But according to the principle that “the more difficult text is the true text” (lectio difficilior), “be’ara deMitzrayim” is most likely the original text.
—
D. “Kol Dichfin Yeitei VeYeichol” — Invitation to Guests
The Rambam’s text: “Kol dichfin yeitei veyeichol, kol ditzrich lePesach yeitei veyifsach… Hashata hacha, leshanah haba’ah be’ara deYisrael, hashata avdei, leshanah haba’ah benei chorin.”
Simple explanation: One invites the hungry and needy, and expresses the hope for redemption.
Novel points:
This is connected with the Rambam’s approach in Laws of Festival Joy, that festival joy must come with guests, and without this it is only “joy of the belly.” That is, “kol dichfin” is not just a nice custom, but part of the mitzvah of festival joy itself.
—
E. Order of the Four Questions (Mah Nishtanah)
The Rambam’s order of the four questions: (1) we dip, (2) chametz and matzah, (3) other vegetables, (4) sitting and reclining. Our custom begins with chametz and matzah, and “we dip” is third.
Novel point: The Rambam’s order makes more sense, because dipping (we dip) is chronologically the first thing the child notices at the Seder.
—
F. “Avadim Hayinu” — Meaning of “Meshu’abadim”
The Rambam’s text: “Avadim hayinu leFar’oh beMitzrayim vayotzi’einu Hashem Elokeinu misham… Ve’ilu lo hotzi haKadosh Baruch Hu et avoteinu miMitzrayim harei anu uvanenu uvnei vaneinu meshu’abadim hayinu leFar’oh beMitzrayim.”
Novel point: Why does one say “meshu’abadim” — after hundreds of years we wouldn’t have been actual slaves anyway? The answer: even when empires fall and people emerge from slavery, there still remains a kind of servitude — one still has to pay taxes, one is still subjugated. Without the mighty hand and outstretched arm one might not have been actual slaves, but “meshu’abadim” — a kind of servitude — would have remained.
—
G. “HaMa’arich BeSippur Yetziat Mitzrayim” — The Rambam’s Text
The Rambam’s text: “Mitzvah aleinu lesaper bitziat Mitzrayim, vechol hama’arich besippur yetziat Mitzrayim harei zeh meshubach.”
Novel point: The Rambam’s language is “hama’arich besippur,” whereas our text says “hamarbeh lesaper.” The Rambam emphasizes that the mitzvah of recounting is not only for one who doesn’t know — even great scholars of Israel who know everything are obligated, as we see from the story of Rabbi Eliezer and his colleagues.
—
H. “Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah — Amar Lahem”
The Rambam’s text: “Amar lahem Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, harei ani keven shiv’im shanah…”
Novel point: The Rambam’s language “amar lahem” implies that he is recounting it as a continuation of the story — as if at the time of the event (at that same gathering in Bnei Brak) Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said his dispute with the Sages regarding the mention of the Exodus from Egypt at night or in Messianic times.
—
I. “Baruch HaMakom SheNatan Torah LeYisrael — Keneged Arba’ah Banim”
The Rambam’s text: “Baruch HaMakom shenatan Torah leYisrael, keneged arba’ah banim dibrah Torah.”
Novel point: “Baruch HaMakom shenatan Torah leYisrael” is a kind of blessing over the Torah, as found in other places in the words of our Sages (for example, the last chapter of Avot — “Blessed is He who chose them and their teaching”). When one begins learning a new topic, one makes a blessing over the Torah. The topic of the four sons is: the Torah writes four times that a child asks and one answers, each time with different language — this teaches us that one must speak to each child according to his level.
—
J. “Yachol MeRosh Chodesh” — The Source of the Mitzvah
The Rambam’s text: “Vehigadeta levinkha… yachol meRosh Chodesh, talmud lomar ba’avur zeh.”
Novel points:
1) In our Haggadah one begins “yachol meRosh Chodesh” without the verse “vehigadeta levinkha” beforehand, which makes it difficult to understand. The Rambam brings it with the verse, which makes clear that “yachol meRosh Chodesh” is an exposition on the verse “vehigadeta levinkha.” The verse “vehigadeta levinkha” is also the verse that one says for the “one who doesn’t know to ask” — “you open for him.”
2) Why would one have thought Rosh Chodesh? Because before it states “you shall observe this service in this month” — many laws of Pesach begin from Rosh Chodesh Nisan. “Talmud lomar ba’avur zeh” — the mitzvah of recounting the Exodus from Egypt is specifically at the meal, when matzah and maror lie before you.
3) Novel point about stating the source with the mitzvah: There is a concept that when one performs a mitzvah, one states the source of the mitzvah. When one performs the recounting of the Exodus from Egypt, one says the verse “vehigadeta levinkha” — the source of the mitzvah itself.
—
K. “Mitchilah Ovdei Avodah Zarah” — Terach and Lavan
The Rambam’s text: One brings the verse from Yehoshua (24) about “mitchilah ovdei avodah zarah hayu avoteinu” — matchil bigenut umesayem beshevach.
Novel points:
1) The Rambam earlier in the laws mentioned the principle of matchil bigenut umesayem beshevach, but didn’t bring the verse. Here in the Haggadah one brings the verse from Yehoshua.
2) There are two degradations / two verses that speak of matchil bigenut: (1) Terach — idolatry, (2) Lavan HaArami — “Arami oved avi.” Two grandfathers (as it were) of whom one is “ashamed,” and one mentions it here in the Haggadah. [Note: Lavan is not exactly a grandfather — he was Rachel’s father, but not in the same category as Terach.]
—
L. “Baruch Shomer Havtachato” — “Hi” vs. “VeHu”
The Rambam’s text: “Baruch shomer havtachato leYisrael… hi she’amdah la’avoteinu velanu.”
Novel points:
1) The Rambam writes “hi” with a yud — which means “the promise” (feminine). Our text says “vehu” with a vav — which means “the Almighty.” This is a significant difference: according to the Rambam it is the promise of the Covenant between the Parts that stands by us; according to us it is the Almighty Himself who stands by us.
2) The Rambam writes “hi” without the initial vav (without “vehi”), but no significant difference is found between “hi” and “vehi.”
—
M. “Arami Oved Avi” — Differences in the Rambam’s Text
The Rambam’s text: One expounds the verses of “Arami oved avi” with an introduction of “tzei ulemad.”
Novel points:
1) No repetition of verses: In our Haggadah one repeats each verse between the sections of exposition. The Rambam says the sections of exposition directly, without repeating the verse each time. This is more concise.
2) “Not through an angel and not through a seraph”: Our Haggadah has an entire section that expounds the verse “I will pass through the land of Egypt, I and not an angel” — one brings proof for each part of the verse that it was not through an angel. The Rambam does not have this.
3) “In His glory and by Himself” — the Rambam leaves out “by Himself”: This is interesting. “In His glory” can mean the “created glory” (not the Almighty’s essence), and perhaps the Rambam learned it this way according to his approach in providence/angels. It is connected with the inquiry about Moshe Rabbeinu’s role in the Exodus from Egypt — whether the Almighty did it Himself or through an agent.
4) “Uvemora gadol zo gilui Shechinah” — the same in the Rambam as in ours.
5) Rabbi Yose HaGelili’s exposition (plagues at the sea): The Rambam does not have the section where Rabbi Yose HaGelili, Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Akiva add more plagues (that at the sea there were 50/200/250 plagues). Our Haggadah includes it. This fits with the principle from above — that the Rambam viewed it as an addition/piyyut, not part of the formal Haggadah.
—
N. Rabban Gamliel — Pesach, Matzah, and Maror
The Rambam’s text: Rabban Gamliel’s text — Pesach, matzah, and maror.
Novel points:
1) The verse “asher pasach”: Earlier (in the laws) we struggled with why the Rambam doesn’t bring the verse “asher pasach” in the law. Here in the text of the Haggadah he does bring it — which is actually proof that one must say it.
2) “Until the King of kings of kings, the Holy One Blessed be He, revealed Himself upon them and redeemed them immediately”: The Rambam’s text for matzah has “King of kings of kings” which earlier in the laws was not written. The concluding word “immediately” (= in haste, right away) is the main concept of matzah — the haste, that the dough didn’t have time to rise.
3) Two ways to learn “it didn’t have time until He revealed Himself”: (a) The dough didn’t have time because the Almighty appeared and they had to go immediately; (b) even the redemption itself — the “revelation” — was fast enough that it didn’t let the dough rise.
4) “Marorim elu” vs. “maror zeh”: The Rambam says “marorim elu” — plural language, whereas our text says “maror zeh” — singular language. Three explanations: (a) there are many types of maror that one may eat (chasa, tamcha, etc.), therefore plural language; (b) the Rambam’s language of the blessing is also “al achilat marorim” (or “matzah umarorim”), which fits with the language of the verse “al matzot umarorim yochluhu”; (c) content-wise: the bitterness that Egypt gave us was a “bunch” of types of suffering — hard labor, mortar, bricks — therefore plural language. But matzah was one thing — bread of affliction — therefore singular language.
—
O. “Bechol Dor VaDor Chayav Adam Leharot Et Atzmo”
The Rambam’s text: “Bechol dor vador chayav adam leharot et atzmo ke’ilu hu yatza miMitzrayim.”
Novel points:
This is connected with what was already learned in the laws: one “shows himself” through eating bread of affliction, through the manner of freedom, through the four cups — all in remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt. The Rambam’s text says “vehotzi’anu misham”; our Haggadah adds another verse “ba’avur zeh asah Hashem li.”
—
P. “Lefichach Anachnu Chayavim” — The Transition from Recounting to Praise
The Rambam’s text: “Lefichach anachnu chayavim lehodot, leshabeach, lefa’er, leromem, lehadar… shehotzi’anu me’avdut lecherut, mishi’abud ligeulah, miyagon lesimchah, me’evel leyom tov, ume’afelah le’or gadol… venomar lefanav Halleluyah.”
Simple explanation: The “lefichach” is the transition from recounting (third person — history) to prayer/praise (second person — one is now speaking to the Almighty). One says all the expressions and begins Hallel.
Novel points:
1) “Lefichach” refers to the entire Haggadah: Not only to the last section, but to everything that was mentioned until now — the entire story of the Exodus from Egypt.
2) “Who performed miracles for our fathers and for us”: The Chelkat Yoav (brought in Balikutah) asks: Why does it say “for our fathers and for us”? This connects with “leharot et atzmo” — it’s not just a memory of what happened to the fathers, but also to us.
3) “Venomar lefanav Halleluyah” — whether one says “Halleluyah” twice: It is discussed whether one says the word “Halleluyah” twice (once as an introduction, and then again when one begins “Hallelu avdei Hashem”). It is concluded that there is no contradiction — it could be that this is simply the order: the “venomar lefanav Halleluyah” is the introduction, and then one begins the psalm.
4) “Shirah chadashah” comes later: “Shirah chadashah” comes in the blessing (asher ge’alanu), not here at Hallel.
—
Q. The Blessing of “Asher Ge’alanu” — Conclusion of the Haggadah
The Rambam’s text: “Baruch atah Hashem Elokeinu melech ha’olam asher ge’alanu vega’al et avoteinu miMitzrayim vehigi’anu lalailah hazeh le’echol bo matzah umarorim. Ken Hashem Elokeinu vElokei avoteinu yagi’enu lemo’adim velirgalim acherim haba’im likrateinu leshalom, semechim bevinyan irecha vesasim ba’avodatecha… venodeh lecha shir chadash al ge’ulateinu ve’al pedut nafsheinu. Baruch atah Hashem ga’al Yisrael.”
Simple explanation: The blessing of “ga’al Yisrael” concludes the first part of Hallel and the Haggadah before the meal.
Novel points:
1) “Lalailah hazeh” vs. “halailah hazeh”: The Rambam’s text is “lalailah hazeh” (with a lamed), not “halailah hazeh” (with a hei) like our custom. “Lalailah” is better, because it fits with the language of “shehecheyanu lazman hazeh” — the lamed of reaching a point in time.
2) The content of “semechim bevinyan irecha”: One doesn’t say directly that one is sad about exile — one is joyful about the Seder — but one prays that the next festival should already be “joyful in the building of Your city and glad in Your service.” The difference is practical: now one cannot bring sacrifices (no altar), one doesn’t eat the roasted meat, one doesn’t have “joy except with meat” — but then one will have the altar and the full joy.
3) “Shir chadash al ge’ulateinu” — a new Haggadah in the time of redemption: From this language “venodeh lecha shir chadash al ge’ulateinu ve’al pedut nafsheinu” one sees that in the time of redemption there will be a different text of the Haggadah. The Rambam begins with “customary in the time of exile” and ends with “venodeh lecha shir chadash” — this shows that the entire text is specific to exile, and at the redemption one will say a new song.
—
R. The Second Night of the Diaspora
The Rambam’s words: The same text is for the second night of the diaspora, and one is obligated in four cups and in the other things done on the first night.
Simple explanation: In the diaspora, where one observes two days of Yom Tov, the second Seder night is identical to the first.
Novel points:
1) Why does the Rambam need to write this? It’s obvious that the second day of Yom Tov in the diaspora is like the first day of Yom Tov — regarding shofar the Rambam also writes that one blows on the second day, but this is obvious. What is he adding?
2) Answer — a person might think that recounting is not relevant twice: Regarding the recounting of the Exodus from Egypt a person might think that it’s “repetitive” — one already recounted the entire story last night, the child already asked Mah Nishtanah last night, why is he asking again? Therefore the Rambam needs to make clear that one says everything again.
3) “Halailah hazeh” — both nights: Because in the Haggadah one says “vehigi’anu halailah hazeh” (or “lalailah hazeh”), a person might think that there is only one “lailah hazeh.” Therefore the Rambam says that both nights are called “halailah hazeh.”
4) Siddur vs. halachah: This is more of a “siddur” style — a person who looks in the siddur needs to know what to do the second night. Perhaps the Rambam copied this from the Siddur of Rav Amram Gaon or similar sources.
5) [Digression: How long should the Seder take?] The Rambam’s text of the Haggadah itself takes about 22 minutes to say. An opinion is quoted that it’s not clear that the Haggadah must take longer than Shalom Aleichem on Friday night — it’s all an introduction to the meal. But the Rambam did say that one should “extend,” explain to the children, “this slave and that maidservant” — this can take two hours. The main thing is that it should be with joy, and if one falls asleep in the middle that’s a problem (the Rambam doesn’t allow falling asleep at the Seder).
6) A custom for two nights: A custom is recounted — the first night one recounts what is written in the Written Torah, and the second night what is written in the Oral Torah (the Rabbis). This is connected with the “one who doesn’t know to ask” (first night — more simple meaning) and “the wise one, what does he say” (second night — more Oral Torah).
—
S. The Second Night — Shabbat and the Text of the Blessing
Novel point: When it’s Shabbat, there is a change in the text (“from the Pesachim and from the zevachim” vs. “from the zevachim and from the Pesachim”) — but this is not specific to the second night, but rather for Shabbat (because there is no chagigah).
—
T. Counting of the Omer — Placement in the Rambam
The Rambam’s approach: Counting of the Omer is in Sefer Avodah, Laws of Daily and Additional Offerings, not in Sefer Zemanim.
Novel points:
1) Why not in Sefer Zemanim? Counting of the Omer is a time-bound mitzvah, between Pesach and Shavuot — seemingly it belongs in Sefer Zemanim. A Jew who learns all of Sefer Zemanim is still missing a very important mitzvah!
2) The Rambam’s reasoning: The name itself — “counting of the omer” — shows that it is connected with the omer offering. The Rambam therefore placed it in Daily and Additional Offerings, where the omer and two loaves are.
3) The Rambam holds counting is Biblical in our time: The Rambam differs from most Rishonim — he holds that counting of the omer is Biblical even in our time, when there is no omer offering. Nevertheless he places it with sacrifices. In the Gemara there is an opinion that counting in our time is “a remembrance of the Temple,” but the Rambam learned differently.
4) The Rambam wrote for people who learn the entire Rambam: The answer is that the Rambam didn’t make his book for people who learn only one book — he made it for those who know the entire Rambam. Therefore it doesn’t matter that counting is in Sefer Avodah.
5) Why didn’t the Rambam at least mention counting in Laws of Chametz and Matzah? Regarding “the second night of the diaspora” where the Rambam writes what one does, he could have added one line that one begins counting of the omer. The answer: The Rambam was very “economical” — he didn’t want to add even one line that doesn’t directly belong to the topic.
📝 Full Transcript
End of Laws of Chametz and Matzah: The Text of the Haggadah That Israel Practiced in the Time of Exile
Introduction: Why Does the Rambam Bring the Text of the Haggadah?
The Rambam’s Purpose in Mishneh Torah
Speaker 1:
Good, we are learning the holy Rambam, end of Laws of Chametz and Matzah. The Rambam, besides covering all of Torah in its entirety, his book is also the only book that a Jew needs to have besides the Tanach. Because of this, he included the text of the prayers, just as we had in Sefer Ahavah, there is the text of prayer for the entire year, for the High Holidays, for all the festivals.
And here at the end of Laws of Chametz and Matzah he brings down the text of the Haggadah so that a Jew should know what the text of the Haggadah is. That means, after he has already told him what the seder looks like, and there he already spoke about the prayers, but he didn’t bring the entire text, he brings here the entire text. Very good.
The Text of the Haggadah in the Time of Exile Specifically
And the text, actually, since it’s a practical matter, unlike usually where he brings not only laws that are relevant, but also laws for the Messianic era, also for example the Korban Pesach he mentioned in the order of the Haggadah, he mentioned how one says Mah Nishtanah in the time when the Temple existed, but here he speaks only of how he begins the text of the Haggadah that Israel practiced in the time of exile.
He brings here the text that was in his days, it’s approximately almost entirely like our Haggadah, we have of course added a few things, I only know, something a bit from the Arizal, a bit from the Zohar, but essentially it is the same text that we know. Yes.
Investigation: Is the Text a Halachic Ruling or Just a Practical Description?
Speaker 2:
Yes, so, I think it’s more than, one can understand a bit deeper. That is, the halachah is the Rambam’s job to write the laws of the Torah. The laws of the Torah exist both in our time and in the time of the Temple, and so forth. Text, not essentially a law, so as you say, it’s a practical reason why he brings this.
Perhaps also, even here he brings only the customs of all Israel which it appears to him, it seems, there are great investigations about this, we spoke about this a bit regarding the text of prayer, whether the Rambam is a ruling, or plainly he writes down a practical siddur that was practiced in Egypt in his time.
The Rambam Held That It Is a Ruling
But it does appear that the Rambam held that it is a ruling, that is he wrote what he understood to be the comprehensive text for all Jews. For this, it says for example he excluded things, okay, there are things that stand in our Haggadah, the Zohar is with things that didn’t exist, but even the Rambam, I think there are also precise points in the Rambam in the text of the siddur from Sefer Ahavah that it works this way.
Proof: The Rambam Knew About “Dayeinu” and Rabbi Yose HaGelili But Didn’t Include It
There were pieces that the Rambam knew. For example, those who learned about Rabbi Yose HaGelili with the Dayeinu, the few pieces that come together there at the end of the Arami Oved Avi. The Rambam knew it, he even said it at his seder. He even alluded to it, he said just as one extends and… Yes, they said it’s a hint to this. So said Rabbeinu HaRambam.
But the Rambam knew about this piece, I can even be that at his seder he said it, but in his text he didn’t write it. Why? He held that this is not a general text. There is a custom of Israel, custom of Israel means all of Israel, not the custom of Egypt, I don’t know what, custom of Sepharad, custom of all Israel, and this piece is an addition. There are those who practice it, one can say it, it’s a nice thing, but it’s not the halachah this way.
“Dayeinu” Is a Piyyut, Not Part of the Formal Haggadah
Yes, it’s upon us, that Dayeinu is something that was sung, it was like… which is very nice to sing. Yes, it’s a piyyut. Perhaps it’s such a song that was sung perhaps at Shulchan Orech, such a thing like we also, one sings other things, but this wasn’t a tremendous thing.
Practical Difference: Students of the Rambam
Therefore it comes out a great practical difference, that one who wants to follow the ruling of the Rambam, if the Rambam’s text is just a text, the Rambam goes his text, we have another text, there’s no difference. But if the Rambam did mean by this to rule, that if there is someone who is a student of the Rambam, he wants to rule going according to the custom of the laws of the Rambam, he can, or must he say the text of prayer also according to the Rambam, because this is also like rulings, that the Rambam has that this is the correct text.
Possible Answer: “Practiced by Israel” Doesn’t Mean a Ruling
Even on this I could perhaps disagree and say, that the Rambam doesn’t say here that this is the text of the Haggadah, because this is how I have seen it is correct, but because this is what Israel practiced. But today, a Jew in 5787, should he look at what Israel practiced, what his father, what his father-in-law, what the Jews practice, he should do that.
You could say that, but the Rambam looks at it, if he would have looked that way, the Rambam wouldn’t have written the text of the Haggadah, because he says, ask the benchers, look what stands in the siddur. The Rambam looks at it, as clearly as it was what was learned, the Rambam looks at it that there is such a thing as saying what the custom is. Sometimes if the custom is not correct, he even thinks, he’s not afraid to argue on a custom. But there is in him a concept like…
Perhaps the Rambam Held of Lo Titgodedu
It could be that the Rambam strongly held a purpose like lo titgodedu, that all Jews should have one text. It could be that the Rambam would have thought that it’s important that all Jews should say the same siddur, that there shouldn’t be divisions from every city. There are things, one learned in the siddur, there are things that the Rambam writes some practice and some practice.
Discussion: Difference Between Halachah and Text
Speaker 1:
Like the Rambam said yesterday in chapter 8, that the verse from Yehoshua, there one can expound. Yes, yes, but that is the halachah.
Speaker 2:
But I say, there I thought like that according to the Rambam, if one expounds on his own, not the exposition that stands in our great text, it’s also good. It’s good from the side of halachah, but not from the side of custom. This is the law that stands in the Mishnah. In the Mishnah it says doresh the entire portion, the Rambam didn’t even innovate it.
But the text is a custom, and the custom is also. It becomes a bit more formalized. There is a formal text that the sages made that the Jews practice in the time of exile, and it appears that yes, from the side of custom this list is the way that one does. It’s not optional as if. A custom, you know how a custom is obligatory? I don’t know, by a custom of all Israel it is a custom of all Israel.
Story: The Brisker Rav and the Text of the Rambam
I’ll just say this, I think there are Jews who do this, even the Brisker Rav with others who, even such things, such things they said like the text of the Rambam. That is, there is a dispute. I remember someone said about the Brisker Rav that many things in the mention because they learned a lot of Rambam.
For example, people think that practicing laws from the Rambam is something of Rav Kapach, but even Rav Chaim Brisker and Rav Velvel is a family that was very involved in Rambam, many laws they would practice like the Rambam, whether like the Or HaChaim, even actual disputed laws. He says, I’m a Rambam, I’m a Rambam Jew, I learn with you his laws.
Someone came to the Brisker Rav, I remember I saw such a thing, he told him that he should say the text of the Rambam on some topic. He said, no, this is the Sephardic text, we pray Ashkenazic text. But it could be that it’s not correct. It could be that the Rambam would have wanted that if you want to say the text of the Rambam. Because in any case, this is obligatory, this is like a certain determination from the Rambam that this is a correct text. Anyway. Okay, very good. Let’s get into it.
Beginning of the Text: Ha Lachma Anya
The Title: Text of the Haggadah
Speaker 1:
The Rambam says thus: Text of the Haggadah, this is the chapter. That was practiced, this is the Rambam’s chapter, yes? Text of the Haggadah. Yes. Not that, but this.
Speaker 2:
What is the word nusach? Is there in the Gemara the word nusach?
Speaker 1:
Interesting, we know very well nusach to be. No, I think it seems more that the word nusach is an Arabic word originally, one must ask the dictionaries. I don’t ask from the Torah or from the Gemara such a word nusach. No. By us it’s a very accepted word. Okay, I don’t know. It would seem more that it’s not a word understand, it’s more a word from the… If the… It simply stands already before the Rambam’s times, because he… I don’t believe the Rambam created the week, but…
Speaker 2:
Yes, yes, but I say that it could be that it’s a… It’s perhaps from the language of sach, from the language of speaking?
Speaker 1:
No, n… It seems to me that it’s a thing from the later, yes, but I don’t find here. Okay, I’m not relevant.
“In the Time of Exile” Specifically
Text of the Haggadah that Israel practiced in the time of exile. This is in the time of exile specifically, as one will see inside that there are things that are only relevant in the time of exile, and simply according to the Rambam. The Rambam did care to write laws of sacrifices, but he didn’t care for the text that one will say when the… because then one will look at what will be then the custom of Israel, yes? Then there will be a Sanhedrin to make a text of the Haggadah.
Speaker 2:
Yes, but on halachah he didn’t say then there will be a Sanhedrin. Because he is the Sanhedrin for then.
Speaker 1:
Why didn’t he make the Sanhedrin for then? Okay, it’s not important. It’s not there. Just a bit, the answer is because it’s not there. On halachah the Rambam has a source. The Gemara rules, he can use the principles on every halachah. But how will the Rambam take the authority to make the authority for Mashiach? It won’t also give the right there. There’s no halachah, there’s no determination.
What Will Be Different in the Time of the Temple
And the truth is that the differences are only the few things. One will be able to remove “next year in the land of Israel,” and one will be able to remove… what is relevant for example the Jews who have a problem. We heimishe Jews say everything, say about Jerusalem the destroyed from its builders and the desolate. By those who care about this, the Mizrachim, actually do play around.
Perhaps one shouldn’t say next year in the land of Israel, because we’re already sitting. If someone… like one says next year in the land of Israel, there is a great… the Chabad Jews don’t say. A building, one doesn’t say a building in Jerusalem, because it’s not yet built. Whoever lives in Jerusalem and he says next year in Jerusalem, he is a speaker of falsehoods before the eyes. I don’t know why one speaks such a foolish thing. Okay, let’s learn further.
Speaker 2:
If it’s a lie, if he says next year in Jerusalem, and he means to say something else. Shlomo Shlomo, I don’t know. I think one must mean literally.
Speaker 1:
Okay, not our topic. Let’s say, we don’t need to learn every word. From the Haggadah everyone knows from the Haggadah, but we’ll just note the two three things that the Rambam says perhaps in the laws, but a bit differently.
The Rambam’s Text Is Perhaps Different Than in the Laws
There’s also an interesting thing, that one will see perhaps inside, that there are things that the Rambam says his text in the laws differently than it stands here. It could be that the custom should be the custom exactly what the text stands in the laws, but this is not so crucial the text.
The Rambam’s Text: Bivhilu Yatzanu MiMitzrayim
He begins on the second cup, he already said that Maggid one begins after the second cup, and says, one says thus, bivhilu, bivhilu is like we say it bechipazon, yes? Bechipazon yatzanu mimitzrayim, and one says Ha lachma anya di achalu avhatana, this is the lechem oni di achalu avhatana, dinafki me’ara demitzrayim, the fathers who went out from Egypt, or when, kedinafki, like when they went out me’ara demitzrayim.
Dispute of Texts: “Be’ara Demitzrayim” vs. “Dinafki Me’ara Demitzrayim”
Yemenite Text vs. Rav Sheilat’s Text
So listen, this is the dispute of texts. I have here for example in his Rambam, Rav Sheilat, it says be’ara demitzrayim, like it stands by us. There is a Yemenite text, it says dinafki. I don’t know if it’s original for the Rambam. The Yemenites many times wrote in their text, like everyone, what they were accustomed to say they wrote into the Rambam.
But therefore, the people who say that the precise text in the Rambam is the Yemenite text, this is certainly nice to say about the laws, which had good copyists, but about the text of prayer, not convinced that specifically the Yemenites, because it could be he wrote the text that he was accustomed to say.
The Great Difference: Two Types of Matzah
But I think, here comes out a great difference how one says the nafki around, because there were two times matzah. There was matzah that was eaten at Pesach Egypt, which this was already eaten when one ate the Pesach in Egypt, still before going out. Afterwards was the shelo hispik betzekam shel avoteinu, and they only had matzah to eat. It’s two different types of matzah.
Speaker 2:
Yes yes, not only that, but all the commentators didn’t understand what means be’ara demitzrayim, because in Egypt one didn’t eat.
Speaker 1:
What you say is already a bit of an answer, it’s a forced answer, because it’s implied that it’s lechem oni because one ate it in Egypt. Therefore there is the Ibn Ezra that one brings in commentators on the Haggadah and other Torahs, and the note is essentially to solve that problem.
General Rule: The More Difficult Text Is the True Text
But usually there is a rule that the more difficult text is the true text, so you can in general.
The Text of Prayer of the Rambam — A Question
But therefore, the people who say that the precise text of the Rambam is the Yemenite text, this is certainly nice to say about the laws which had good copyists, but about the text of prayer is not convinced that specifically the Yemenites, because it could be he wrote the text that he was accustomed to say.
Two Types of Matzot — Matzah of Pesach Egypt and Matzah of the Exodus from Egypt
But I think, here comes out a great difference how one says the practical difference, because there were two times matzah. There was matzah that was eaten at Pesach Egypt, which this was already eaten when one ate the Pesach in Egypt. Afterwards was the shelo hispik betzekam shel avoteinu, and they only had matzah to eat. It’s two different types of matzot, it’s matzah mitzvah, and this is not matzah mitzvah.
Speaker 2: Yes yes, not only that, but all the commentators didn’t understand what means be’ara demitzrayim, because in Egypt one didn’t eat matzot.
Speaker 1: What you say is already a bit of an answer, it’s a forced answer, because it’s implied that it’s lechem oni because one ate in Egypt. Therefore there is the Ibn Ezra that one brings in commentators on the Haggadah and other Torahs, and the note is essentially to solve that problem.
But usually there is a rule that the difficult miracles, text is the true text.
Speaker 2: So, do you know the matter as a rule?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: There is such a rule, it’s not fixed. There is a great rule. If there is one text that is difficult and another text that is not difficult, this is not a rule.
Speaker 1: I think, one can’t make from this a dispute. Many times the easier text someone wrote in, it would have been difficult for him actually the question. But originally it presumably stood this way.
Speaker 2: So anyway. Okay, further.
Kol Dichfin — Invitation of Guests
[#2] And here one invites like guests. Like the Rambam fulfilled in Laws of Festival Joy, that festival joy comes with guests, and not is this a joy of the stomach.
Kol dichfin, whoever is hungry, chafin is a language of hunger, a hungry person. Yeitei veyeichol should come eat. Kol ditzrich lePesach, one who still needs to have the needs of Pesach, yeitei veyifsach. And one ends here shata acha, one ends with a blessing. Now we are still here in exile, leshana haba be’ara deYisrael, shata avdei, we are still slaves, leshana haba, leshana de’atya, the coming year, benei chorin.
The Four Questions — The Rambam’s Order
English Translation
Okay, so after that there are the four questions. The order of the Rambam has been left out – first eino metabalin, then chametz and matzah, then she’ar ruchos, then bein yoshvim. Our order begins with chametz and matzah, and eino metabalin is the third dispute on the order.
But his order makes a bit more sense, because dipping is the first thing.
Speaker 2: Okay, perhaps one doesn’t do that one. That one is a hiddur that people do, perhaps not everyone does it.
Speaker 1: Okay, further, “Avadim hayinu l’Pharaoh b’Mitzrayim vayotzi’einu Hashem Elokeinu misham”. In short, so what?
The Meaning of “Meshubadim” — Even After Hundreds of Years
But what’s interesting, I thought it’s very beautiful, one can learn. But I thought the simple meaning is that things change anyway, yes, over the course of hundreds of years. But if it weren’t for a yad chazakah uzroa netuyah, we perhaps wouldn’t still be slaves, I don’t know, there would have been some changes, but meshubadim we would still be. That’s how empires were, one was slaves. But even after one got out, one still had to pay taxes, there was still some sort of shibud. Okay.
V’ilu Lo Hotzi — The Mitzvah of Sippur
⟦#3⟧ Further, “V’ilu lo hotzi HaKadosh Baruch Hu es avoseinu miMitzrayim, harei anu uvaneinu uvnei vaneinu meshubadim hayinu l’Pharaoh b’Mitzrayim”. Just as the Rambam said that the mitzvah of sippur is not only when one doesn’t know. “Mitzvah aleinu l’saper bitzi’as Mitzrayim, v’chol hamaarich” — here it says “bitzi’as Mitzrayim”, our language is “hamarbeh l’saper” — here, “hamaarich b’sippur yetzi’as Mitzrayim”, he means to say, “harei zeh meshubach”.
Ma’aseh B’Rabbi Eliezer — Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah
Okay, after that stands the ma’aseh b’Rabbi Eliezer, which shows how much they were maarich. After that comes the “Amar lahem Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, harei ani k’ven shivim shanah”, he brings the dispute of Rabbi Elazar.
Speaker 2: Yes, the Rambam’s language is “amar lahem Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah”, as if he’s relating that during the ma’aseh this happened.
Speaker 1: So he brings me the ma’aseh of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah which is a dispute with the Chachamim about mentioning sippur yetzi’as Mitzrayim at night or in yemos haMashiach.
K’neged Arba’ah Banim — Baruch HaMakom SheNasan Torah L’Yisrael
And here there is the “k’neged arba’ah banim”, which begins with a kind of birchas haTorah, “Baruch HaMakom shenasan Torah l’Yisrael”. There are many times that Chazal begin with such a sort of birchas haTorah. Also the last chapter of Avos, “Baruch shebachar bahem uvmishnasam”, and he begins learning, it’s such a sort of birchas haTorah.
He says, “k’neged arba’ah banim dibrah Torah”, he brings out how different times when the Torah relates that the child will ask and one will answer, it always stands with a different language. He says, what the Torah means to say is that one should speak to each child according to his level, four types of children and four types of answers. For the rasha one should answer sharply, for the chacham one should answer with all kinds of pilpulim, for the tam one should answer simply, and so on.
Yachol MeRosh Chodesh — V’higadta L’vincha
And after that one brings the midrash, expounding the verse “v’higadta l’vincha”. The midrash says, “v’higadta l’vincha”, yachol meRosh Chodesh.
Speaker 2: Yes, this is another thing that’s missing in our Haggadah, about which people don’t understand the Haggadah well. One begins “yachol meRosh Chodesh”. Why would I think meRosh Chodesh?
Speaker 1: Because this is the verse that one says for the she’eino yodea lish’ol.
Speaker 2: Yes? “At petach lo”. Nothing is written.
Speaker 1: But the main thing is, the main thing is that here he says the halachah.
Speaker 2: No, no. I just want to speak about the things that are a bit different from the Rambam.
Speaker 1: In our Haggadah plainly one begins “yachol meRosh Chodesh” and it doesn’t come in. So one must know that it begins a verse “v’higadta l’vincha”.
Speaker 2: You’re right that this is a verse that I just mentioned, perhaps from this one has it with a break.
Speaker 1: And if so you would think Rosh Chodesh, talmud lomar “ba’avur zeh”. Why would you think Rosh Chodesh? Because many halachos begin from Rosh Chodesh. Because before it says “v’avadta es ha’avodah hazos bachodesh hazeh”. There’s a verse before it. The true one would need to bring more.
So, talmud lomar “ba’avur zeh”, that the mitzvah of sippur yetzi’as Mitzrayim is at the meal. The halachah of this we’ve already seen in the halachos, here one says it at the Haggadah. There’s a concept to say, when one does a mitzvah one sees that there’s a concept to say the halachah of that mitzvah, because when one does sippur yetzi’as Mitzrayim one says the source of the mitzvah.
Maschil Bignus U’mesayem Bishvach — Terach and Lavan
So, he relates from the beginning. And he expounds the verse in Yehoshua that the Rambam said, the verse that speaks about maschil bignus mesayem bishvach.
Speaker 2: Yes, the Rambam didn’t bring the verse from before, but one says from the beginning and brings the verse from Yehoshua.
Speaker 1: From the beginning, yes, expounding the same as by us. It’s not the verse “Arami oved avi”, but it brings the same thing, also that there was Terach, it’s also maschil bignus mesayem bishvach. This is the first disgrace. There are two verses that speak of maschil bignus mesayem bishvach: Terach and Lavan HaArami. Two grandfathers of whom we’re ashamed, and one mentions it here.
Speaker 2: Okay, not necessarily we’re ashamed of Lavan, not a grandfather.
Speaker 1: I mean it was Rachel, yes, I hear, not so bad.
Speaker 2: Okay, after that, both are the maschil bignus.
Speaker 1: Yes, okay.
Baruch Shomer Havtachaso — “Hi” vs. “V’hi”
And further, “Baruch shomer havtachaso l’Yisrael”, one mentions that the promise for yetzi’as Mitzrayim was already in the time of Avraham, one brings the verses from bris bein habesarim, and here is “v’hi she’amdah”. The Rambam doesn’t say “v’hi”, he says “hi”. “Hi” doesn’t mean… We say “hu” with a vav means the Almighty, “hu she’amdah”. But here is “hi” the promise. “Hi” with a yud means the promise. The promise that the Almighty promised in bris bein habesarim stands for us to save us.
The Rambam doesn’t write the first vav for some reason, I don’t know any difference, it’s not the same thing.
Speaker 2: Okay. Yes.
Arami Oved Avi — Exposition and Differences
⟦#4⟧ And after that one begins the “Arami oved avi”. He makes a small introduction to this, “tzei ul’mad”, let’s go learn, and one expounds the verses of “Arami oved avi”, just as the Rambam said. The verses also have a few differences from the Rambam’s text with ours, but let’s see what one can see.
“Misei me’at” we say the same. “Vayehi sham l’goy” we say the same. “Gadol v’atzum” — I don’t know, I lost it, in our Haggadah it says the same. “V’rav” — same. “Vayare’u osanu”, “vayitnu aleinu”, “vanitz’ak”, “vayishma Hashem”.
In Our Haggadah One Repeats Each Verse
The Rambam, one thing, in our Haggadah one repeats each verse between the pieces. The Rambam simply says the pieces straight. “Es amaleinu v’es lachatzenu vayotzi’einu Hashem”. Also the Rambam does a bit more briefly.
Lo Al Yedei Malach — “Bichvodo U’v’atzmo”
It says “lo al yedei malach v’lo al yedei saraf”. We have another whole piece that expounds the entire verse, “v’avarti b’eretz Mitzrayim ani v’lo malach”. That is, one brings a proof that every time it says in this verse is lo al yedei malach.
The Rambam left out the word “u’v’atzmo”. When it says “bichvodo u’v’atzmo”, here “bichvodo” can mean the kavod hanivra, but let’s not go into it.
Speaker 2: Interesting. But not al yedei malach, but al yedei malach. What does kavod mean?
Speaker 1: Perhaps the Rambam learned it that way?
Speaker 2: I don’t know. Presumably this is a text, but you’re right that there’s an inquiry. It has to do with the earlier inquiry about Moshe Rabbeinu.
B’yad Chazakah — The Ten Plagues
“B’yad chazakah” — what does he count? Everything is the same. “U’vmora gadol zo gilui Shechinah”, so it says by the Rambam. I mean it’s the same thing. “U’v’osos u’vmoftim”, after that the ten plagues, and he counts the signs.
The Rambam doesn’t have the Rabbi Yose HaGelili who adds more plagues. Here we insert.
Rabban Gamliel — Pesach Matzah U’Marorim
⟦#5⟧ After that the text of Rabban Gamliel. The text we’ve already seen in the Rambam twice, each time it says it a bit differently.
Speaker 2: Ah, here he brings yes the entire verse. You see, you remember that we struggled why he doesn’t bring the… asher pasach, he brings it here. That is, one must say it yes. Literally a proof.
Matzah — Ad SheNiglah Aleihem
So matzah is the same thing, ad sheniglah aleihem. Here it also says a bit more, melech malchei hamelachim. I remember that it wasn’t written before. It was written ad sheniglah aleihem HaKadosh Baruch Hu ug’alam miyad. By us we also say ug’alam miyad. The word is the miyad, the bechipazon.
Speaker 2: Right, one must say it. The word is the miyad, that the matzah is about the miyad, the chipazon.
Speaker 1: Rabbi Eliezer says, lo hispik ad sheniglah.
Speaker 2: No, it can be other words. One can perhaps learn two ways. One can learn that it was lo hispik ad sheniglah, but it can be even the redemption was niglah itself, was redeeming in a few enough time.
Marorim Elu — Plural Language
Okay, after that the marorim elu. We say maror zeh she’anu ochlim. Marorim elu is plural language. Also the language of the blessing.
Speaker 2: Yes, a few types of marorim that one may eat. Or perhaps at the first maror?
Speaker 1: I remember that the Rambam’s language of the blessing is also al achilas marorim, or achilas matzah umarorim. The language of the verse is like that, al matzos umarorim.
Speaker 2: But it says here both matzos.
Speaker 1: It’s correct, because the marorim that they gave us was both hard labor, chomer, levanim, many types of marorim.
Speaker 2: Interesting. There is matzah umarorim.
Speaker 1: Interesting. Yes, it’s correct. The suffering was a bunch of types of suffering, and the bread that they had was one piece of bread, lechem oni.
B’chol Dor Vador — L’haros Es Atzmo
⟦#6⟧ U’v’chol dor vador, not only then when… but b’chol dor vador chayav adam l’haros es atzmo. Very good, we’ve already learned. Everyone says, one shows oneself with eating lechem oni and the like, yes? One acts out with zecher litzi’as Mitzrayim. The Rambam said with derech cheirus, with the four cups, so it was written earlier apparently in the halachos. The l’haros is as if he left, the joy from it.
It says, v’hotzi’anu misham. We say another verse, if I remember, ba’avur zeh asah Hashem li.
L’fichach Anachnu Chayavim — Transition to Praise
Okay, after that comes l’fichach. L’fichach goes on all that one has mentioned until now, not only on the last piece. L’fichach, but about the yetzi’as Mitzrayim, about the entire Haggadah. One finishes, it means until now it was like a story. Now one goes, one speaks already to the Almighty. L’fichach anachnu chayavim l’hodos, l’shabei’ach, l’fa’er, l’romem, l’hader.
She’asah Nisim La’avoseinu V’lanu — Chelkas Yoav
And he says that the Balakuta has a fine piece that he brings from the Chelkas Yoav, why it says here the same statement, she’asah nisim la’avoseinu v’lanu. By us we say la’avoseinu v’lanu.
Speaker 2: Interesting, it’s more like… earlier l’haros es atzmo
Halachah 8 (Continued) — “L’fichach Anachnu Chayavim” and Hallel
Speaker 1: It means, until now it was like a story, now one goes, one speaks already to the Almighty. “L’fichach anachnu chayavim l’hodos, l’hallel, l’shabei’ach, l’fa’er, l’romem, l’hader”, and there are perhaps other expressions here, I don’t know, perhaps it’s a part is, and also the same truth. And “shehotzi’anu mei’avoseinu”, we say “es avoseinu v’osanu”. Interesting, it’s more like earlier, “l’haros es atzmo”. “Kol hanisim v’hanifla’os ha’eilu”.
And here it says yes, you see, earlier in the text all these expressions weren’t written, perhaps he was simply abbreviating there. Here he says “mei’avdus l’cheirus, mishiabud lig’ulah, miyagon l’simchah, mei’evel l’yom tov, umei’afelah l’or gadol”. And he says the same truth, “mei’avdus l’cheirus”, I don’t remember exactly the same.
Discussion: “V’nomar Lefanav Halleluyah” — Does One Say “Halleluyah” Twice?
Speaker 1: And “v’nomar lefanav hallel”, say Hallel. And after that he has here the blessing of “ga’al Yisrael”. Wasn’t this written earlier beginning on “shirah chadashah”?
Speaker 2: No, this is… no, it doesn’t say… no, not what I remember.
Speaker 1: Ah, later, “v’nodeh lecha shirah chadashah”.
Speaker 2: No, no, that one says.
Speaker 1: There are Haggados where it says “shirah chadashah”, but I mean it’s not the correct way. “V’nomar lefanav halleluyah”. I don’t know, the “halleluyah”. On the contrary, later there will be a “shirah chadashah”, not the “halleluyah”. But one says twice the word “halleluyah”. One says the introduction, “v’nomar lefanav halleluyah”, one begins saying “halleluyah avdei Hashem”. I don’t know, perhaps this happened truly so? But perhaps not, because the Rambam marks which verses. I don’t know. How do you say at home?
Speaker 2: “V’nomar lefanav shirah chadashah, halleluyah, halleluyah, halleluyah”?
Speaker 1: One says twice?
Speaker 2: Yes, so it seems.
Speaker 1: Perhaps one doesn’t need to actually. There’s a heading, “v’nomar lefanav halleluyah”, one begins, yes.
Speaker 2: Okay, it’s not a contradiction. It can be.
Speaker 1: Yes, it doesn’t hurt.
The Blessing of “Asher Ge’alanu” — Conclusion of the Haggadah
Text of the Blessing
Speaker 1: And after that one finishes the text of the blessing of the blessing. One says thus, “Baruch atah Hashem Elokeinu melech ha’olam asher ge’alanu”, also again there is, also earlier is “v’ga’al es avoseinu miMitzrayim”, “v’higi’anu halailah hazeh” or “lalailah hazeh”?
Speaker 2: By us it says “ha”?
Speaker 1: “V’higi’anu halailah hazeh” we say, yes. But I mean it’s better the language “lalailah”, and it’s like “shehigi’anu lazman hazeh”, “lalailah hazeh le’echol bo matzah umarorim. Ken Hashem Elokeinu vEilokei avoseinu yagi’einu l’mo’adim v’lirgalim acheirim haba’im likraseinu l’shalom”.
“Semeichim Bivnyan Irecha V’sasim Ba’avodatecha” — The Difference Between Exile and Redemption
Speaker 1: It means, the Yom Tov one is still in exile, but the next one should already be “semeichim bivnyan irecha v’sasim ba’avodatecha”. It’s interesting, one doesn’t say directly I’m sad that I do it here, I’m happy about the Seder, but still, I would have wanted better, I would have wanted to already be sason and happy. It can be that here, just as now we may not bring sacrifices because we don’t have the altar, but then we will already have the altar.
Speaker 2: Ah, yes. One doesn’t eat the roasted meat, after all.
Speaker 1: Perhaps semeichim means in joy but with meat, we don’t have now literally the simchas habasar.
Speaker 2: Okay, that’s not really.
“Shir Chadash Al Ge’ulaseinu” — A New Haggadah in the Time of Redemption
Speaker 1: “V’nodeh lecha shir chadash al ge’ulaseinu v’al pedus nafsheinu”. Here we also see that in the time of redemption there will be a different text of Haggadah, because here we say clearly that there will be shir chadash al ge’ulaseinu. And for the concept of the tune one must make… Imagine that you’ve already made the tune. One must make then the tune. It fits very well, because he begins already, customary in the time of exile, and one finishes v’nodeh lecha shir chadash. “Baruch atah Hashem ga’al Yisrael”. So, until here the text of exile.
The Second Night of the Diaspora
The Rambam’s Language
Speaker 1: The Rambam, the same text is for the second night of the diaspora. I must say something.
Digression: How Long Does the Haggadah Take?
Speaker 1: And now we’ve been learning for twenty-two minutes. He’s already said the entire Haggadah. So whoever complains that the Haggadah takes two hours, I don’t know.
Speaker 2: No, it’s not every single word for me.
Speaker 1: One will add each word another two minutes. It’s not so long. The Rambam said, one should be mamrich literally with explanations, one should explain to the children, this slave and that maidservant. To such an extent that it should take two hours.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay.
Speaker 1: Whoever is traumatized by the two hours, you shouldn’t do it in two hours. That’s certain. No, I say this, it should come with joy. My brother told me that it’s not clear that the Pesach Haggadah must take longer than Shalom Aleichem Friday night. It’s all such an introduction to the meal. At the table of angels one says approximately approximately approximately all the prayers with things. This is true, that if it’s so long that one falls asleep in the middle, it’s a problem. The Rambam doesn’t let you fall asleep at the Seder. Not only that, but even if one will fall asleep later, it’s a problem.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: But certainly I… yes. I also do the Haggadah for two hours, I’ll tell you but what it says inside. You expound the Haggadah in the manner of pardes and so on. Well, one just needs to say it.
Why Must the Rambam Write About the Second Night?
Speaker 1: “Both you already bless and read the Haggadah on the first night. The same thing is the second night of the diaspora. And the same thing is the second night, one is obligated in four cups and in the other things that were done on the first night.”
Ah, you catch, this he writes here under the chapter of the customs that are practiced in the time of exile, because it’s not an essential halachah. It’s like all Yamim Tovim. Why must he say? No, do you understand what I’m asking? It’s a halachah this. The halachah is apparently simple, every Yom Tov, he says in the laws of shofar blowing he’ll write that one must also do the second Yom Tov’s shofar. It’s obvious.
Answer: A Person Might Think That Sippur Doesn’t Apply Twice
Speaker 1: But perhaps he thought that a story, once it’s a story, the second time one should just do the basics, one should do the essential things that one needs to do. After all, everything has already been said. He says it again. And he says it again. Yes, because a person might think, it already sounds repetitive. I mean that all these things he said last night, the son already asked last night Mah Nishtanah. Why is he asking again Mah Nishtanah?
A Custom for Two Nights
Speaker 1: So I usually conduct myself that the first night I tell what it says in the Torah, and the second night I tell what it says in the Rabbis.
Speaker 2: Very good, for the first night the reason is in the “sheino yodea lishol” (one who doesn’t know how to ask), and for the “chacham mah hu omer” (the wise son, what does he say). One speaks more of Torah she’be’al peh (Oral Torah).
“Halailah Hazeh” — Both Nights
Speaker 1: But interestingly, you see that this is still part of the siddur, I don’t know. But seemingly a halacha, I don’t know if one speaks with a real precision that I’m asking, but understand what I’m saying, that seemingly… There is no difference at all. Just as everyone adapts, there is no difference at all between the first day and the second day. He’s adding something here. I don’t know clearly what it is.
Discussion: “Min HaPesachim U’min HaZevachim” on Shabbat
Speaker 1: Anyway, this is the end of this seder. Did we indeed say that the second night one says “min hapesachim min hazevachim”?
Speaker 2: No, not the second night. If it’s Shabbat, it is said. I don’t know why, because there is no chagigah.
Sefirat HaOmer on the Second Night
Speaker 1: He says, I mean to say Sefirat HaOmer on the second night or something.
Speaker 2: That’s already in the laws of Sefirat HaOmer.
Speaker 1: It doesn’t say… But it’s very possible that you mean to say the Mah Nishtanah. You shouldn’t think that the child already asked you last night, it’s no longer relevant. But since there are two sanctities, we just act as if it were the first… But it’s simple, should it really give a truly different time?
Speaker 2: No, he says it here.
Speaker 1: He says it as a siddur says it. He doesn’t say it as the… Right, that’s what I’m saying, this is with the siddur, not with the halacha. The siddur needs to have it written, a person can’t know everything, and a person who looks in a siddur doesn’t know everything. Or perhaps this was copied from the siddur of Amram or something like that…
Conclusion of Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah
Speaker 1: Okay, so this is the end of Hilchot Pesach. Perhaps also, because sometimes one said the word “halailah hazeh,” “vehigiyanu halailah hazeh” (and we have reached this night). A person thinks that there is only one “lailah hazeh.” “Nachshoch yechiyani’s,” both are called “halailah hazeh.” I have already learned Hilchot Yom Tov. Just so, yes. Okay, this is the end of Hilchot Pesach.
Hilchot Sefirat HaOmer — Placement in the Rambam
Sefirat HaOmer Is in Sefer Avodah, Not in Sefer Zemanim
Speaker 1: And now we’re going to learn, very interestingly, the Hilchot Sefirat HaOmer is not in Sefer Zemanim, as we just mentioned that one must sit in Sefirat HaOmer between Pesach and Shavuot, the next Yom Tov. But Sefirat HaOmer, the entire mitzvah of Sefirat HaOmer is in the Rambam in Sefer Avodah by the Hilchot Temidim U’Musafim. Very strange, what is the connection with the sacrifices, the Korban Omer, the Shtei HaLechem.
The Rambam’s Position: Sefirah Is D’Oraita Nowadays
Speaker 1: Although it is a mitzvah, the Rambam is clear that it is a mitzvah nowadays as well. The Rambam is different from most Rishonim, he holds that Sefirat HaOmer is d’Oraita (Biblical) even nowadays, even when there is no Omer. Nevertheless, it seems because it’s not so long.
The Gemara’s Positions
Speaker 1: There is a position in the Gemara that the matter is because “shema yibaneh Beit HaMikdash” (perhaps the Temple will be built) we should be able to count the sefirah. There is yes, it says in the Gemara that it’s “zecher laMikdash” (a remembrance of the Temple), but the Rambam perhaps learned differently in the Gemara. The Rambam accepted that it is d’Oraita even nowadays, and I think the answer is that it is indeed a short halacha, and it’s connected there, so he brings it there.
Why Is Sefirah Missing from Sefer Zemanim?
Speaker 1: But I mean to say that a Jew learns all of Sefer Zemanim, he’s still missing a very important time-bound mitzvah, which is mitzvat Sefirat HaOmer, and he indeed needs to learn the entire… The Rambam didn’t make it for people who learn only one sefer, the Rambam made it for those who know the entire Rambam. That’s the proof. Even though he remembers even that in Hilchot Temidim U’Musafim it says that one must count the sefirah.
Discussion: Why Should Sefirah Be by Sacrifices?
Speaker 2: I can understand, because in the word itself it says that it’s a mitzvah, “Sefirat HaOmer,” so the word in halachot is Omer.
Speaker 1: No, he’s right, that’s the reasoning, but nevertheless, do you remember that the Rambam divided here, right? A little bit he now spoke here about Korban Pesach by the seder, but all the laws of kodashim, avodot and mechaprim, he doesn’t write here. And conversely here, here is something that is connected with kodashim, but it’s essentially a mitzvah for every Jew.
Why Doesn’t the Rambam Mention Sefirah by the Second Night?
Speaker 1: For example, you could have understood that here where it says “take from the maror, markan chakorin on the second night of the Diaspora,” it should say, “and then one also begins Sefirat HaOmer.”
Speaker 2: Yes, what would it have cost him to write one line?
Speaker 1: It costs him. You see that the Rambam was very economical. Well, that’s all for now.