Recline like Zeidi

The midrash says on the words at the beginning of the parsha, ויסב אלקים את העם that מכאן אמרו לא יאכל עד שיסב אפי' עני.  The question is where do Chazal derive from here the obligation of leaning at the seder?  What does going around toward yam suf have to do with reclining at the seder?  The Rebbe in his Haggadah points you to the midrash in Bamidbar (1:2) that understands the wordויסב  not to mean circumvent like the translation of Rashi, rather it means they were reclining like kings leaning on their beds.  That is how the midrash is our parsha understands as well and derives from here the obligation of reclining at the seder.  It still needs to be explained why the midrash emphasizes that the obligation is even on a poor person?  Tosfos at the beginning of ערבי פסחים explains the novelty of the חיוב הסבה on a poor man for I would have thought that he is exempt because he doesn’t have cushions and pillows to lean upon (see Mordechi,) so it’s not  דרך חירות, קמ"ל.  It is unclear what is the קמ"ל, that it’s an obligation even though it’s not דרך חירות for some reason, or it is דרך חירות anyway?  It’s clear from the Darchei Moshe (siman 472) that it’s not דרך חירות and still there is an obligation of הסבה, why?  Based upon the midrash, we can understand.  One could have understood the obligation to recline is because of the general overarching obligation on the night of Pesach to view one’s self as leaving Egypt, to act in a way that is דרך חירות (as one might think from the simple reading of the Rambam.)  The midrash is telling us that’s not the case, the source of the obligation isn’t merely because of an experience happening now, it’s an obligation that is a זכר לחירות, as a means of remembering the past.  Therefore, it’s irrelevant if for this individual, the poor man, there is no דרך חירות experience in his reclining, he is still obligated because of the obligation to act in a way which is a remembrance of the Exodus.  That is why the focus of the midrash is on the poor man; it is because of theזכר לחירות  aspect of the obligation, because this mimics the Exodus experience, that we learn out even a poor man must recline.

Based upon this idea, we understand why most Rishonim don’t accept the view of the Ravyeh that nowadays when its not the norm, the דרך חירות to lean there is no obligation to do so.  Why do they reject his words, his argument seems logical?  The answer is that yes, it may not be דרך חירות, but we are obligated because of זכר לחירות.  The Ravyeh also agrees to this principle, just he holds since the commemoration is to something which shows דרך חירות, if that isn’t expressed any more through that action of reclining, there is no obligation.  We can also understand why a lefty must recline on his left side according to the Shulchan Aruch (for issues of סכנה,) even though that is uncomfortable for the lefty, its not דרך חירות (see Gevuros Hashem Ch. 48?)  True, its not דרך חירות, but it is זכר לחירות (based upon the writings of my great-uncle, shlita under a pseudonym in his yeshiva’s journal Migdal Or, volume 8, year 5761 pg. 220.)

However, the Gemorah in Pesachim (108a) exempts a wife sitting at the table of her husband from reclining and the Rashbam brings from Rav Hai Gaon because its not normal for a woman to recline in her husband’s presence, presumably he means its not דרך חירות.  However, why isn’t there an obligation on the wife to recline because of the זכר לחירות?  Rav Whareman brings from his rebbe, Rav Lazer Silver, (who’s yertzheit is on Tuesday,) that sometimes when Chazal use the expression לאו אורחיה it doesn’t mean just an exemption, it means a איסור.  So, in the scenario of the wife since she is busy preparing the food (as Rabbenu Manoach 7:8 says,) Chazal don’t allow her to recline for that will cause her to be unfit to prepare the food.

The derush pshat in the midrash (see Ksav Sofer) can be expressed in a few ways.  The idea is that even though it looked like Klal Yisroel was in a bad state, they were going toward water, and would be stuck, it really was for their benefit.  The poor man feels down, but he must realize that it will work out in the end and therefore, even he has reason to rejoice and recline, as my uncle, shlita put it, “help is always around the corner.”  

After I spent this whole time writing this, I see that of course, my father already stole my thunder here, and I agree with his point that the last idea is a little weak.  However, regarding his question about lefties, I believe the thought process is that if the whole impetus for the obligation is דרך חירות, then it shouldn't apply to a lefty at all for their is no דרך חירות for him.  דרך חירות is a personalized din, if the person feels this is דרך חירות for himself or not.  It's the specific  individual's feelings of exodus.  However, זכר לחירות is a general din, depending on what was the experience of the general populous at the time of the Exodus.  It's a commemoration of the nation leaving, not of this specific type of person.  Therefore, if the din is because of  דרך חירות it doesn't make sense to say לא פלוג, it only makes sense if the din is derived from זכר לחירות.