Vakiyra and The Pesach

Rashi says that Hashem appears to Moshe with the term vayikra, a term of affection as opposed to Bilam who Hashem appears to him ויקר a term of coincidence and impurity.   The difference between Moshe and Bilam is a gulf the size of the Grand Canyon why is one letter used to sum up the difference?  

The difference between vayikra and vakayar is indicative of the difference of how Moshe and Bilam relate to Hashem.  Vakiyra means that there is a connection between Hashem and the person.  Vaykar means that G-d merely needs to relate a message.  Moshe's desire is to connect to Hashem and therefore Hashem talks to him, vakiyra.  Bilam has abilities but he does not use them to connect to Hashem, he merely receives messages.   

This message is give at the beginning of the book of korbanot since the essence of korbanot is to enhance  one's relationship to Hashem.  One brings a korban for an inadvertent sin because that indicates one was not connected to Hashem at the time of the sin otherwise one would not have stumbled into a sin.

Why is it of all korbanot we have a zecher for the Pesach and there is a long recitation of the korban Pesach which we don't due generally for other holiday offerings?  Because the essence of our relationship with Hashem begins at Pesach.  Korbn pesach is the korban that most clearly demonstrates vayikra, that close bond between Hashem and Klal Yisrael. (based upon sicha of Rav Shimshon Pinkus on Pesach.)   

The Calling

Rashi says לכל דברות ולכל אמירות ולכל צוויים קדמה קריאה.  The Sifsay Chachamim says this alludes to three times it says ויקרא, one here which is דיבור, the אמירה is by the burning bush, ויקרא אליו אלקים and the ציווי is at Matan Torah, ויקרא ה למשה ראש ההר.  What is the lesson of the ויקרא?  And why in these three places is ויקרא used?  The Tanchuma connects this vayikra to the first vayikra in Chumash, ויקרא אלהים לאור יום.  What is the meaning of this equation?  

The Shem MiShmuel (5671) says מאמר כ"ק אבי אדומו"ר זצללה"ה שפירש ההפרש שבין ויקר שנאמר בבלעם לויקרא שנאמר במשה, כי לשון ויקר היינו שהדיבור בא אליו למקומו ולא נתעלה ע"י הדיבור ונשאר בלעם הרשע כמו שהי' עומד מבחוץ, אבל לשון ויקרא הוא שקרא אותו שיקרב הלום, ונתעלה לקראת הדיבור עכת"ד.  Vayikra means to call someone to come closer, when Hashem calls to someone, he is bringing them closer, raising them up.   

These three instances of callings to Moshe are Hashem's way of raising up Klal Yisrael through the leader, Moshe Rabbenu.  The three callings are pivotal moments in the advancement of Klal Yisrael.  The first time is when Moshe is being selected as the leader to take the Jews out of Egypt.  The second time is Matan Torah, the monumental moment when the heavens and earth meet via the giving of the Torah.  In order to elevate Klal Yisrael to be able to be ready for this moment there needed to be a vayikra.  Korbanot as well is the the way a person can elevate the physical domain to become closer to Hashem and that also requires an elevation to make it happen. The comparison to the vaykira of light is the message of all the vayikra's that Moshe experienced.  When one is in a state of darkness, in a state where they need a boost, Hashem creates the light for the person to be elevate himself. 

Mitzvas Maror

The Rambam (Chametz 7:12) says אכילת מרור אינה מצוה מן התורה בפני עצמה אלא תלויה היא באכילת הפסח. שמצות עשה אחת לאכול בשר הפסח על מצה ומרורים.  In Sefer Hamitzvot (#56) as well he says המרור נגרר לאכילת פסח, ואינו נמנה מצוה בפני עצמה.  It would seem from the Rambam that since maror on a Bibical level only applies when we have the korban pesach (Pesachim 120a) it is not viewed as its own mitzvah but rather as an extension of the mitzvah of pesach.  However, the Yiraim and Smag (see Rav Perlow on mitzvah 47-49) and Toafos Re'am) do count maror as a sperate mitzvah.  In other words, altough there is a תנאי that maror can only be eaten with the korban pesach, the maror is its own commandment.  The Avnei Nezer (O.C. 534) asks but the Gemarah (28b, 120a) says that an ערל טמא ומי שהיה בדרך רחוקה even though they don't eat the pesach they still eat maror?  He understands from the Rambam (Korban Pesach 9:8) that it is a heter to eat maror but not an obligation.  This approach is already suggested by R' Avraham son of the Rambam in the teshuvot printed in back of Frankel Sefer Hamitzvot. 

The simple read of the Gemarah in Pesachim (91b) is that even according to the opinion of R' Shimon that holds woman are patur from korban pesach, they are still obligated in maror.  The Briskor Rav proves from Rashi there that indeed that is how he holds and he supports this thesis from a Rashi (39b.)  The Briskor Rav aligns Rashi with the opinions that hold maror is an independent mitzvah. He says the Rambam will understand as many Rishonim do that the Gemarah is really referring to matzah and maror is just thrown in since it is an expression to say matzah and maror together.    

Based upon this Rambam that maror is not an independent mitzvah but rather as part of the laws of the korban pesach, Rav Chayim (stencil) explains why the Rosh would entertain that one would not need to eat a cazais of maror since it is not a mitzvah to eat the maror itself but it is a part of the eating of the pesach.  

However, The Rebbe in the Hagadah (on Tzafon) says that even according to the Rambam if a person could not eat the pesach there is still an obligation of maror and he sends you to Pesachim (91b), Kiddushin (37b,) Tosefta end of Chapter 2 and Tafnas Paneach (On the Rambam Chametz U'Matzah 7:2.)  Rav Zevin (Igros volume 17 pg. 41) askes how does it make sense to say the Rambam hold that one can eat maror without pesach if the Rambam clearly says maror is part of pesach.  The Rebbe just says in response that the Rogatchover says that the Rambam holds maror is linked to the pesach only so far as that if the pesach is not offered at all, then there is no maror but if the pesach is offered in general, just an individual has an exemption, that person still has an obligation of maror and the Rogatchover was well aware of the Rambam's that Rav Zevin is quoting.  It is noteworthy that the Rebbe does not ponit to the Gemarah on 120a that an ערל וטמא eat maror.  Presumably there is understandable to learn that it is merely a reshus to eat the maror as the Avnei Nezer argues. However, it is very hard to understand how on can justify the Rambam holding that maror can exist as a stand alone obligation if he considers it part of the pesach?  However, it is notable that this position may be supported from the ruling of the Rambam (Chametz U'Matzah 8:6) that one says a beracha before eating the marar even in the times of the mikdash.  If the maror is only a detail in pesach why would it receive its own beracha? It would seem even according to the Rambam maror is an obligation, וצ"ב.

After Pesach Chametz

Chametz שעבר עליו הפסח is prohibited due to a קנס.  The halacha (448:3) is that it is prohibited to everyone even to benefit from the chametz. However, there are Rishonim that hold it is only prohibited for the one who keeps the chametz and those that hold it is not prohibited בהנאה (see beginning of shiur of Rav Asher Weiss.)  

The Pri Migadim (434:9) says that chametz owned by kids would not be prohibited after Pesach since the קנס on chametz שעבר עליו הפסח would not be imposed on kids. In the פתיחה כוללת he is unsure about this halacha.

All of these issues may hinge on the geder of the קנס of the Chachamim.  Did the Chachamim place  an issur on the cheftzah of chametz that was kept over Pesach as an extension of the issur of chametz and if so it is across the board and carries all the stringencies of chametz on Pesach.  Or it is an issur on the gavra for violating the issur and if so it can have it may only apply to the one who kept the chametz and may only carry an issur achilah or may not apply to kids.  (We can sharpen the chakirah more and even if it is an issur cheftzah, is it an extension of the issur chametz with all of its laws or is it an new issur and may not carry an issur hanah (like the Briskor Rav's difference between the issur chametz Erev Pesach in the fifth hour or the sixth hour.)

Thoughts On Karpas

We eat karpas as a strange thing to eat a vegetable before the meal in order encourage children to why we are doing karpas.  The Bach (673) gives three explanations as to what is the answer to the question of we are doing karpas at the seder.  1.  It is the way of בני חורין to eat vegetables before a meal in order to whet the appetite.  2. The answers is that we eat a snack since its going to be a while until the meal.  3. He cites the Maharal (Gevuros 50) that it is not the karpas itself that is strange for it is normal to eat a vegetable at the beginning of the meal, rather it will make the eating of maror strange for we already ate a vegetable for karpas.  This approach is already mentioned in the Rishonim, and Rabbenu Dovid says this is supported from the ma neshtana which we say שתי פעמים, the strangeness is the eating of two vegetables, not the karpas itself.  (However, it does create another difficulty since the ma neshtana is recited before the maror, why would there be a question?)  According to this approach, the answer is we are eating maror since it is a mitzvah.  

These two approaches should come into play in the discussion the Tur has in siman 483 if one doesn't have wine and has to say the kiddush on matzah, when is karpas eaten.  The Tur says in that case karpas should be eaten before kiddush for if it is eaten afterward, there will be nothing strange for the vegetable is bein eaten after the bread.  However, according to the Maharal, the point is just to make the second eating of the vegetable as the maror a funny event and that can still take place even if the karpas is eaten after the matzah.  The Maharal's approach in fact is the simple read of the Gemarah (114b) that since even if one can be yotzei maror with the karpas we eat again as a היכר for the kids.  In other words, it is the second eating that is strange.  See Chazon Eish who tries to align the other approach with the Gemarah. 

The opinion of the Rambam (Matzah 8:2) and Rav Amram Gaon is that karpas should be dipped in charoses.  Tosfos disagrees for we use charoses for maror only to remove the poison in the maror (115a,) which does not apply for the karpas.  So why do the Rambam and Rav Amram hold one must use charoses?  

The Bach (ibid) suggests that there is some degree of poison that exists in all vegetables.  

The Ritva on the Haggadah says יש להם לאכול מן הירקות המרים, ונהגו לאכול כרפס, ויש לנו לטבלו בחרוסת, ... והטיבול הזה הוא זכר לוימררו את חייהם בעבודה קשה בחומר ובלבנים.  According to the Ritva the karpas is a bitter vegetable to remember the slavery in Egypt.  In light of this it may very well be that is why the Ritva says to dip it is charoses which is also meant to serve as a remembrance to the slavery (see Rishimos Shiurim of Rav Kamlenson siman 75.)  It comes out the Ritva holds karpas is connected to being slaves in Egypt while the Bach in one approach holds we eat karpas as a means of demonstrating freedom so they view karpas from opposite sides.  

The Rambam is of the opinion that everything eaten as a mitzvah through the seder, matzah, korech, maror, karpas, is dipped in charoses.  Why does he hold that way?  The Rambam (7:11) says הַחֲרֹסֶת מִצְוָה מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים זֵכֶר לַטִּיט שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹבְדִין בּוֹ בְּמִצְרַיִם. ... וּמְבִיאִין אוֹתָהּ עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן בְּלֵילֵי הַפֶּסַח.  Here the Rambam says it is a mitzvah for the charoses to be present on the table durnig the Haggadah.  As the Alter Rebbe puts it (473:20)  וְתִקְּנוּ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לְפָנָיו חֲרֹסֶת בִּשְׁעַת אֲמִירַת הַהַגָּדָה, שֶׁהַחֲרֹסֶת הוּא זֵכֶר לַטִּיט שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ בּוֹ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְּמִצְרַיִםק וְזֵכֶר לַתַּפּוּחַ כְּמוֹ שֶׁ[יִּ]תְבָּאֵר, לְכָךְ צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמְּסַפֵּר שִׁעְבּוּד מִצְרַיִם.  In other words, there is a halacha that the table should be adorned with charoses as a remembrance to the shibud and then there is another halacha of dipping in the charoses which the Rambam delineates in Chapter 8.  In light of this it is understandable that the Rambam holds the halacha of dipping things in charoses is not a halacha in the item being sipped but it is a halacha in charoses as a way of enhancing the remembrance of the shibud that all dippings of the night should be done in charoses (ibid siman 79,80.)  

According to to Tosfos (114a,) the Rosh and Tur that hold we don't dip in charoses why do they require a dipping at all?  The Migdal Oz (8:8) says שאין אכילה חשובה בלא טיבול.  In other words, to define it as a eating that will be acknowledged dipping is required.  

The Ritva (presumable lishitaso that it is a bitter vegetable,) asks how can one say a ha'adamah on the vegetable if it is not fit for consumption and vegetables which are not edible are shehakol?  He answers that כי בלילה הזה מצותו קובעתו ועושה אותו כאילו מידי דחזי, כיון שאנו חייבים לאוכלו, since we have to eat it, on this night it is deemed fit.  In the Haggadah Naftali Sheva Ratzon (which is one of the commentaries on the Haggadah on Sefaria) says a derush idea, "This is an allusion to a Midrash: when the Israelite women gave birth in the fields and the Egyptian soldiers would come to kill the children, the ground would swallow up the infants. The Egyptians would then bring oxen to plow up the ground in order to find them. After they left, they broke through the ground and sprouted up like weeds, as it says “I caused thee to multiply as the plants of the field.” (Ezekiel 16:7) In order to remember this great miracle, we eat greens and recite the blessing boray peri ha’adamah even though it is not necessary to recite this blessing under these circumstances."    

The Rambam (8:2) is of the opinion that one must eat a cazais of karpas.  That would presumably be because every time we find an act of eating it entails eating a cazais.  Many Rishonim disagree with the Rambam and do not require a cazais because one is not obligated to eat karpas for the sake of eating it but merely as a means of inspiring questions.  This issue may have its roots as to the nature of the point of karpas.  According to the approach that the karpas eating itself is to arouse questions then its whole purpose is defined as a question starter and it would not require a cazais.  However, the Maharal notes according to his approach that the eating of karpas is to to encourage questions about the maror, it is logical that it will only make the eating of maror strange if an act of actual eating, meaning a cazais took place beforehand.  In line of this thought, if the Rambam holds like the Maharal, it is possible to suggest another reason for why he requires the karpas to be dipped in charoses and that is to drive home the home the point that the marror is a second vegetable eating parallel to that of the karpas which will inspire questions (ibid siman 76.)   

The Ritva says proof that there is no act of eating required but it is merely necessary to taste a little bit because we do not say a birchas hamitzvah before eating karpas.  It is noteworthy that even though we say on the karpas the regular beracha of ha'adamah, the Tur (484) is of the opinion that even one who is not eating the karpas currently may say the beracha for others .  The Taz explains that even though the karpas is not technically a mitzvah, once there is a takkanah to do it, its beracha is like a birchas hamitzvah where one can say it for others.  In other words, it is not a mitzvah but it is a chiuv.  The Ritva also must hold this way for he says it is not a mitzvah but as cited before he says מצותו קובעתו which must mean it is a Rabbinic obligation in order to inspire questions.  The Baal Ha'Etur (cited in the Tur) that holds one can't say the beracha unless partaking in the karpas, in other words, it is a regular birchas hanehin would seem to view the karpas as not a geder of a takkanah but as a minhag.  The Rambam that holds one must eat a cazais may hold due even though the point is to arouse questions (even if we don't say he holds like the Maharal,) once it is an obligation, it requires a cazais like any other act of eating.  

The Klal And The Individual

There are two types of korbanos.  There are korbanos of the tzibbur such as the korban tammid where one korban is offered for the entity of Klal Yisrael.  There is another type of korban which is a korban yachid where a private indivdual has an obligation or offers to bring a korban of his one.  The Rambam splits these two categories into the different books, the book of Korbanot which deals with the individual korbanot and the book of Avodah which coves the communal obligations.  The korban pesach is an interesting korban in that it is a korban yachid offered by every individual but at the same time it is qualified as a korban tzibbur (the Yerushalmi says that is why it overrides Shabbos, see also Yoma (51a) פסח נמי אתי בכנופיא.)  (See about this in this book pg. 192-196 (in the pg. numbers on top,) article קורבן הפסח and sicha of the Rebbe volume 18 Behaloscha sicha 2.)  Or in another words as the Rebbe clarifies in a footnote based upon the Rogatchover's breakdown (מפענח צפונות פרק ד,) normally a tzibbur is a sum that is greater than the sum of its parts but in the korban pesach the tzibbur is the combination of all the individuals lumped together.  

The Rebbe goes on to explain the "טעם פנימי" for why this duality is present in the korban pesach.  Pesach is the time of the birth of Klal Yisrale and therefore the korban pesach carries two elements of Klal Yisrael.  On the one hand it is the body of Klal Yisrael, the tzibbur that is of vital importance but at the same time every individual also is important in his/ her own right.  These two perspectives are alluded to by Hillel in Avos אם אין אני לי מי לי, everyone has their own mission and is important in their own right but at the same time, וכשאני לעצמי מה אני, one has to be acting as part of the klal, one's actions as a yachid has to have a place as part of the general klal.  This dichotomy or paradox of acknowledging both the individual and the tzibbur is fraught with tension but is the goal.   

This paradox is also highlighted by the parshios of Vayakhel and Pekuday.  The name Vayakhel means a gathering yet the parsha details every individual vessel used in the Mishkan and the name Pekuday means every individual but the parsha is all about all the pieces coming together?  The Rebbe explains (volume 21 ) that the the parsha of Vayakhel highlights that even though there are individual vessels, they were not made purely with intent for their own function but also to function as part of the general Mishkan.  Conversely, Pekuday demonstrates that after there is an entire Mishkan structure, one should not just view all the individual parts as losing their own self worth in the totality of the building, but that the totality enhances the importance of the individual.  This is also hinted to by the fact that Vakayhel Pekuday are often combine but also are sometimes separate parshios.  There is a klal and individuals and both are of importance.     

Want It

The Chofetz Chaim in Toras Habayis (Ch.7) asks why is it that we aren't able to reach the heights in learning Torah that the previous generations could?  He explains that ones ability to learn Torah depends on how much one wants it.  Since in the past learning Torah was much more important to people, they were able to learn more.  In the footnote he uses this idea to explain the possuk is the parsha, ויקרא משה אל־בצלאל ואל־אהליאב ואל כל־איש חכם־לב אשר נתן ה' חכמה בלבו כל אשר נשאו לבו לקרבה אל־המלאכה לעשת אתה, who obtained the chochma how to do the melacha?  Those that desired to do it, כל אשר נשאו לבו, those to whom it was important, got the ability to accomplish.  This is the peshat in the Gemarah Berachot (50a) that the possuk הרחב פיך ואמלאהו refers to Divrei Torah for when it comes to accomplishing in ruchniout, in learning Torah, if one asks, if one truly desires to accomplish, there will be a way.  In the parsha sheet מתוקים מדבש he adds to this idea the Gra on the Siddur explains the words of Hallel מאשפות ירים אביון the Gemarah says אביון תאב לכל דבר, the way to be raised, to obtain greater levels, is by desiring to grow. 

The beginning of the possuk of הרחב פיך ואמלאהו says אנכי ה אלקיך המעלך מארץ מצרים.  What is the connection between Hashem taking us out of Egypt and asking to obtain divrei Torah?  The Maharsha says since Hashem took us out of Egypt, he can give us the ability to obtain Torah.  Why do we need to derive this from the fact that Hashem took us out of Egypt?  Rav Uri Zohar explains the limud is that one might think yes, one can ask to have the ability to acquire Torah but it has to be logical.  One can't expect to beseech Hashem to become a gadol baTorah if they barely know aleph beis.  The possuk is teaching us that is not the case, I was מעלה, I elevated Klal Yisrael from the depths of tumah so that in just 7 weeks they were able to accept the Torah, so too, a person can ask for the capabilities to excel in Torah beyond his dreams.  A person that wants to excel in Torah is given the capability to do so, one though must still put in the effort to do the work, כל אשר נשאו לבו לקרבה אל־המלאכה, there is a נשאו לבו but it has to lead to a לקרבה אל המלאכה.