Questions

The Mishna in Pesachim (116a) says מזגו לו כוס שני וכאן הבן שואל אביו ואם אין דעת בבן אביו מלמדו מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות.  The Rashbam says (in first peshat) כאן במזיגת כוס שני הבן שואל את אביו אם הוא חכם מה נשתנה עכשיו שמוזגין כוס שני קודם אכילה.  In other words, the pouring of the second cup causes questions and the main question is about the pouring of the cup.  The questions of מה נשתנה of for the child that does not take the initiative and ask questions on his own.  Accordingly, the Rashbam understands the Gemarah (115b) that says when a question is asked by the child it exempts from מה נשתנה at face value for the מה נשתנה is only necessary if no questions have been asked.  

Tosfos takes a different approach.  Tosfos (115b) says even after a child asks a question on his own, there is still a requirement to say the מה נשתנה. In other words, Tosfos understands that there is a takkanah to say the מה נשתנה and that must be said even if other questions have been asked.  It would seem Tosfos holds that Chazal insisted specifically the questions of the מה נשתנה be used. 

That may be because in Tosfos's view the obligation of questions Or Tosfos may not hold that one needs specifically the 4 questions but one's questions but be based upon the mitzvot of the night not other events.  

The Alter Rebbe (473:40) says יִתְעוֹרְרוּ לִשְׁאֹל גַּם כֵּן שְׁאָר הַשְּׁאֵלוֹת: "מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה וְכוּ'", לְקַיֵּם לְבָנָיו מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: "כִּי יִשְׁאָלְךָ בִנְךָ מָחָר לֵאמֹר מָה הָעֵדֹת וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים וְגוֹ', וְאָמַרְתָּ לְבִנְךָ עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ וְכוּ'"  It is part of the mitzvah to have questions and answers at the Seder. Earlier (#14) in discussing karpas he says אֲמִירַת הַהַגָּדָה מִצְוָתָהּ לְאָמְרָהּ דֶּרֶךְ תְּשׁוּבָה עַל שְׁאֵלוֹת שֶׁשְּׁאָלוּהוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "כִּי יִשְׁאָלְךָ בִנְךָ וְגוֹ', וְאָמַרְתָּ לְבִנְךָ עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ וְגוֹ.'  Why does he change the pessukim of the source of the need for questions?  There are two different types of questions that can be asked at the Seder.  One is just bewilderment at the general strangeness of the events that we do and the other type are specifically related to the mitzvot of the night.  The karpas is not related to the mitzvot of the night, it is just something we do to evoke questions about the events of the Exodus.  That is the possuk of the generic עבדים היינו but questions specific to the mitzvot of the night are derived from מָה הָעֵדֹת וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים.  This is fulfilled by the מה נשתנה but can not be fulfilled by general questions and that may be why Tosfos requires the מה נשתנה to be asked (see Rishimos Shiurim siman 100.)    

The Alter Rebbe (473:43) says וְעִקַּר נֹסַח הַהַגָּדָה שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים חוֹבָה עַל הַכֹּל, הוּא מִתְּחִלַּת "עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ.  There is a precise text that Chazal enacted to said and that is the Haggadah which starts at עבדים היינו.  What about the מה נשתנה?  It would seem although the questions of מה נשתנה are a key part of the Seder, the precise wording of the questions is not part of the takkanah of Haggadah.   

The Rambam says in his seder Haggadah that the second cup is poured before the beginning of Maggid.  In addition, the Rambam (8:2) says the one leading the seder says the מה נשתנה.  This indicates that the Rambam is of the opinion that the questions of מה נשתנה are indeed part of the Haggadah (see also הוספות ללקו"ש חלק ג.)  Accordingly, the Rambam omits the Gemarah on 115b for he holds the מה נשתנה must be said as it is part of the Haggadah.  

Rav Chayim says that one of the differences between the general mitzvah of זכירת יצ"מ and סיפור is that the Haggadah must be said דרך שאלה ותשובה.  It would seem that he understands that is a Bibical difference.  It is clear from the Alter Rebbe that the שאלה is not part of the integral part of the Haggadah text that Chazal enacted but maybe one can suggest he may agree that it is a necessary component of the Haggadah but there is on defined text? 

The Yarech L'Moadim suggests a possibility according to the Shulchan Aruch who holds that one pours the cup of wine before עבדים היינו that he can agree in principle to the opinion of the Rambma that the Haggadah is said over the second cup of wine but he holds the questions of מה נשתנה are not part of the Haggadah.  He quotes from Derech Sicha that Rav Chayim Kanievsky said that in fact only the עבדים היינו has to be said after nightfall, not the questions for the questions are only a means of getting to the answer.  This line of reasoning for sure does not work with the Rav Chayim for the suggestion here is that the questions are not part of the Haggadah.   

Many Words

The Gemarah (36a) says the derash of Shmuel that לחם עוני is שעונין עליו דברים הרבה.  Many words are said over the matzah.  What are the many words said over the matzah?  Rashi says the Haggadah and Hallel while Rabbenu Chananel says it refers to when we say מצה זו שאנו אוכלים על שום מה.  These two interpretations are not just a machlokes as to what words are being referred to but reflect two different understandings of the derasha.  One may say the derasha telling us a law in matzah, that the eating of matzah is incomplete unless it is accompanied by words and that is the view of the Rach, that when one eats matzah the explanation of matzah must be said (one can debate if this derash would actually mean that is one didn't say the explanation of matzah if one actually didn't fulfill matzah or is lacking in the optimal fulfillment of the mitzvah as the Ramban (Milchamos beginning of Berachot says.)  Rashi on the other hand, understands that this is a halacha in סיפור יציאת מצרים.  When one does not have the matzah present for the סיפור, then one is lacking in the סיפור.  

As an outgrowth this affects the understanding of the statement of Rabban Gamlienl כל מי שלא אמר שלשה דברים בפסח לא יצא ידי חובתו - which chiuv?  According to the Ramban following in the footsteps of the Rach, it refers to the obligation of matzah, maror and pesach.  According to the Rambam (Chametz U'Matzah 7:5) it refers to the obligation of Haggadah for he does not hold that the matzah itself needs words attached to it.  

These two approaches may be reflected in a difference in the Rishonim explaining why the matzah is brought back for the recitation of the Haggadah.  The Tosfos (114a) say in order to say מצה זו על שום, (and the Bach 473 adds we are afraid we will forget to bring it back at that point in the Haggadah, so we do it at the beginning of the Haggadah.)  In other words, it is only necessary to have the matzah present for the sake of the matzah but Rabbenu Dovid says it is in order for the matzah to be present during the sippur yitzias mitzraim. 

The Rambam (8:6) cites the derasha of דרכו של עני בפרוסה and not דברים הרבה and in addition he has yachatz done right before the eating of the matzah, not before the Haggadah, indicating that he holds that the derasha of דברים הרבה is rejected before the derasha of פרוסה and there is no need to have any part of the Haggadah said before broken matzah.  The Rambam (8:4) also does not hold of the matzah being present during the entirety of the Haggadah but has it brought back right before saying מצה זו.  Our custom to do yachatz before the Haggadah and keep the broken piece on the table, the Alter Rebbe explains (473:36) is because we hold both derashot stand.  It needs to be a piece of matzah and at the same time, the Haggadah must be said over it therefore we break it before starting the Haggadah.  However, it is noteworthy that the Beis Yosef and the Ritva in the Haggadah say that we do yachatz before הא לחמא עניא since we are say הא לחמא עניא we want a live demonstration of the poor man's bread.  Why do they not say because of the דין of דברים הרבה?  In Yarach L'Moadaim siman 34 he cites his son and son-in-law suggest that the fulfillment of lechem עוני as a פרוסה is a din in the maaseh achilah of matzah that is has to be an eating of a pauper which is a פרוסה .  However, the law of עוני meaning דברים הרבה needs only the actual cheftzah of מצה not the פרוסה. 

 The Gemarah (115b-116a) has additional derashot about לחם עוני that it is like the word עני to indicate that one uses a broken piece of matzah or that just as a pauper lights throws the bread in the oven fast before it rises, so too matzah can't rise.  Those derashot tell us about the nature of the matzah so it is logical to assume the derasha of עונין עליו דברים הרבה also is about the matzah itself.  However, the Michilta (cited in the Haggadah) says בעבור זה לא אמרתי אלא בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מנחם לפניך which is the possuk of the mitzvah of סיפור יציאת מתרים indicating that there is a law in sippur that the matzah must be there.  This may be a source to say that matzah is needed for the fulfillment of sippur.  One may in fact argue that these are two halachot.  The halacha of דברים הרבה is a law in the matzah while the law in בשעה שיש מצה לפניך is a law in sippur.  In the Briskor Haggadah it says the Briskor Rav explained the law of דברים הרבה is a law in sippur (and he compares it to kiddush said over wine,) and it concludes therefore, he was מקפיד that the matzah that was eaten be everyone should be one the table during the Haggadah.  The "therefore" is difficult for if it is just a law in sippur, it should suffice with some matzah on the table, why does all the matzah that is eaten have to be there, that would indicate it is a law in matzah?  It would seem that maybe the Briskor Rav held both elements are true, there is a law in sippur for the matzah to be present and there is a law in the matzah that is eaten that words must be recited over it (based upon בזמן שמצה ומרור מונחים לפניך', בגדרי מצות יחץ', there is room to be מפלפל in many of the points.) 

R' Brown points out (Moadanay Moshe siman 23) that these two approaches are inversed regarding if the Haggadah must be said over the second cup of wine.  The Alter Rebbe says (473:40) וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לֶאֱחֹז הַכּוֹס בְּיָדוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לִ"לְפִיכָךְ" כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן צָרִיךְ לִמְזֹג מִיָּד קֹדֶם הַתְחָלַת אֲמִירַת הַהַגָּדָה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁאֲלוּ הַתִּינוֹקוֹת  This is based upon the Tur following the interpretation of Rashi and Rashban (116a.)  In other words, there is no need to have a cup of wine present at the time of the recitation of the Haggadah, we only pour it in advance to encourage questions.  However, the Rambam (7:3) says that the Haggadah is said over the second cup.  In other words, part of the takkanah of the cup is that the Haggadah should be said over it.  This is why the Rambam in the text of his Haggadah has the second cup poured already before the הא לחמא עניא.       

The Cup Of Kiddush

Tosfos in the beginning of Arvei Pesachim explains that one has to wait until nightfall to eat the matzah since regarding the korban pesach it says it must be eaten בלילה הזה and mazah is equated to pesach via a hekesh.  What about the kiddush ,the first cup of wine, does that have to be done only after nightfall?  The Taz (472:1) says that since matzah must be eaten after nightfall so too kiddush since kiddush must be done at a time when one is able to eat the סעודה.  The Magen Avraham says since kiddush is the first of the four cups of wine and the four cups of wine are connected to matzah.  It is unclear in the words of the M.A. why are the 4 cups connected to matzah?  The Alter Rebbe adds that the 4 cups are Rabbinic and the takkanah follows after the din Torah of matzah.  In other words, the Taz uses a technical law in kiddush to say the kiddush must be connected to the seudah so it must be done at night while the Magen Avraham says intrinsically the four cups are connected to the matzah.  (This is how the Mishna Berura seems to explain it as two distinct sevarot but the Alter Rebbe uses also the words of the Taz in his explanation, and he may have understood they are saying the same thing.)  Why do they give two different explanations?  

The first cup of wine is both the first cup of wine and the cup of kiddush.  The M.A. views the kiddush itself as subjugated to the rules of the four cups while the Taz is of the opinion that even though the four cups may be connected to the Haggadah, the kiddush itself in theory could have been said earlier if not for kiddush במקום סעודה.  

The Tur (483) cites a machlokes Rishonim if one who does not have wine says kiddush on bread like any other Shabbos or Yom Tov or since there is a takkanah of 4 cups, one may not say kiddush on bread at all.  This would seem to parallel the same issue, if kiddush is kiddush just it also happens to be one of the 4 cups, one can say kiddush even without wine if necessary.  On the other hand, if one is of the opinion that the kiddush of Pesach night becomes incorporated only within the rubric and rules of the 4 cups, one would not be able to say kiddush on bread (see sicha second night of Pesach 5725, עיונים בלומדות כלל ה.) 

Korech II

The Briskor Rav (Grach stencil) asks according to the Rishonim that hold Hillel requires maror to be eaten in a כריכה how can we say the beracha on just eating maror alone if we are concerned for the opinion of Hillel?  He says it must be that the takkanah of maror nowadays is to eat maror by itself even according to Hillel.  He proves this from the Rambam as well who follows the opinion of Hillel (the way the Maggid understands the Rambam) yet says (8:8) it is a mitzvah diRabbanan to eat maror nowadays. And hence the כורך that we do is a mere זכר למקדש. However, he himself notes this approach fits with the Bach but not with the Shulchan Aruch who says the beracha of matzah and maror covers the korech as well. 

The Rambam (8:6) rules that in the times of the Mikdash one could eat the matzah and maror together or separately.  If so, nowadays even before כורך one has fulfilled their obligation and why eat כורך?  (This is the same issue the Chiddushay HaRan has with Tosfos who holds even according to Hillel one can be yotzei the mitzvot separately.)  According to Rav Schochet the answer would be that yes, one can fulfill the obligations without a כריכה but the additional mitzvah of כריכה is lost and we eat כורך to fulfill that mitzvah.  In the Haggadah of Rav Solevetchik he suggests a similar idea but not as a sperate kium of korech but that there are two obligations of matzah.  There is the obligation of בערב תאכלו מצות and that is fulfilled by eating the matzah by itself but for the kium of על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו it has to be eaten together with the maror.  So one eats כורך as a זכר למקדש when there could be a true fulfillment of על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו (which can't be applied today when maror is only Rabbinic.)  Therefore, the כורך is not a fulfillment of the basic mitzvah of matah and maror which have their own independent obligation but is a fulfillment of a separate din and one does not to cover the כורך with the beracha of matzah and maror.  However, it comes out from what he is saying that the זכר למקדש is applicable both on the matzah and the maror.   

The Tur (475) cites the Manhig holds when eating כורך one must do הסבה since one is eating matzah.  He cites his brother is unsure if הסבה should be done or not. The Beis Yosef says in his view it is obvious that הסבה is required since Hillel would have been doing הסבה as part of his fulfillment of matzah.  So what is the possibility of the Tur's brother that one does not need הסבה?  We see from the Manhig that he does not agree with the reason of the Beis Yosef that the eating of כורך should be patterned after the way Hillel ate it but he says since it includes matzah, הסבה is required. Presumably, the reason to say it is not required is since כורך contains maror.  And that is how the Alter Rebbe (575:20) explains.  In other words, if כורך is done only to ensure maror can be eaten wrapped as it is done Biblically, then כורך will not require הסבה, but if it is also to ensure an additional kium in matzah of על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו, then it would be required.  A noted in the footnotes to the Shulchan Aruch Harav, the Rambam (7:8) when he lists when הסבה is required does not mention כורך indicated that הסבה is not required then.  This would indicate however, that the Rambam holds כורך is done just as a זכר למקדש for the maror, not as a kium in the matzah.  The Alter Rebbe (472:20) mentions another sevarah to require הסבה and that is since the כורך is a zecher to the korban pesach.  This is only according to the opinions that כורך would include the pesach which the Rambam does not hold of.  However, the same Rambma (7:8) makes no mention of הסבה in the eating of the korban pesach indicating he doesn't hold it would require הסבה at all.  Why not? Rav Kamlenson (Rishimos Shiurim siman 67) suggests that since the eating of the korban pesach itslef demonstrates חירות there was no need for Chazal to make a takkanah to eat in a way that demonstrates חירות.    

Korech I

The Gemarah says that there is no definitive pesak halacha in the disagreement between Hillel and the Rabbanan is the mitzvot are to be fulfilled with כורך or independently and therefore we do both.  What would Hillel wrap together?  Rashi and Rashbam (115a) hold that Hillel would wrap together the Pesach, marrot and matzah.  The opinion of the Rambam (8:7) however, is that Hillel would eat only the matzah and marror together.  

The Tur (475) writes הרוצה לקיים מצוה מן המובחר לא יסיח עד שיעשה כריכה כהלל כדי שתעלה לו ברכת מצה ומרור לכריכה כהלל דהא משום דלא איתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר עבדינן לחומרא כתרוייהו ה"נ לענין ברכה צריכין למיעבד שיעלה לשניהם ובשיחת חולין צריך ליזהר אבל טול ברוך לא הוי הפסק.  Since we are not sure if the law follows the Chachamim or Hillel, one should not talk between the beracha and korech.  The Bach says the Tur means it is a nice thing to not talk and have the beracha go on korech but in reality there is no issue for one does korech as a mere zecher liMikdash but it is not the real mitzvah even according to Hillel for we do not have korban pesach and even Hillel will have to agree the mitzvot are fulfilled independently.  However, the Taz (475:7) says that it would seem this is לעיכובא and if one speaks, one would have to say a new beracha.  What is the peshat in the Taz?  

The Gemarah proves from the fact that Hillel holds one can bundle the various mitzvot of the night with their different tastes, that he holds the tastes of various mitzvot don't  nullify each other.  However, that applies to mitzvot of the same level of obligation.  Nowadays that there is no korban Pesach, maror is only a Rabbinic obligation and can no be consumed together with the matzah.  So Hillel should be the same as the Rabbanan?  Tosfos (Pesachim 115a) says according to Hillel, we would first eat matzah by itself and then eat matzah together with maror.  How does Tosfos solve the issue, if you ate the matzah already you fulfilled your obligation and the maror is then going against matzah that is not obligatory? The Pri Migadim (475 M.Z. 7) says the opinion of Tosfos is like the Rambam and therefore according to Hillel the takkanah to eat marror nowadays is patterned after it was done in the mikdash and therefore the obligation of marror would carry with it another obligation of eating matzah.  Says the P.M., this is the basis for the opinion of the Taz that eating korach is part of the mitzvah of eating maror and not a mere zecher liMikdash.   

The opinion of Tosfos is that both according to the Rabbanan and Hillel one can fulfill the mitzvah of matzah and maror whether eaten separately or in a sandwich, the machlokes is only which way is better to do.  Being that this is the case, the Pri Migadim's explanation is problematic, for Tosfos says even without the korech the mitzvah is fulfilled according to Hillel, so since we eat matzah and maror each independently before korech, the korech is no longer needed for the mitzvah?  In addition,  the Ran takes issue with Tosfos for if in his view one can be yotzei the mitzvot independently according to Hillel, why would there be a takkanah to do them together if Hillel agrees even in the times of the Mikdash one already fulfilled their obligation?

Rabbi Ezra Shochet (Ohalay Torah journal volume 917) suggests that there are two laws according to Hillel (in the view of Tosfos) for fulfilling maror.  There is an obligation to eat matzah and maror each independently and that point is agreed by all.  The machlokes between Hillel and the Rabbanan is if there is an additional mitzvah of כריכה.  So when Tosfos says that one can fulfill maror without korech he means the mitzvah of maror but there would not be a fulfillment of them mitzvah of כריכה.  It is that kium which we are obtaining by eating matah and maror together.  In other words, we are not eating matzah again to fulfill the optimal mitzvah of korech, we are doing it to fulfill the mitzvah of having a כורך and that we do as a zecher to the Bibical mitzvah of having maror in a כורך.  

The opinion of the Ramban (Milchamos,) Chidushay HaRan etc. is that according to Hillel one can not fulfill the mitzvah of maror without a korech.  It should follow then that according to Hillel there is no way to fulfill maror nowadays since one can't eat it with the matzah which has a Torah obligation and if one already ate matzah, then there is no obligation at all to eat matzah.  So, they explain we eat כרוך as a זכר למקדש.  In other words, according to Hillel we would have a takkanah to eat matzah and marror as a זכר למקדש.  They could have said like the Pri Migadim suggested that the Rabbanan would give an obligation to eat matzah in a korech in order to fulfill matzah properly.  Why do they not say that?  Rav Shochet suggests that they hold like the opinion of Rashi that according to Hillel the pesach is part of the sandwich and since that is impossible and the kricha will not be fulfilled anyway, there is no point is making a takkanah to eat maror and matzah in a kricha and are forced to say we only eat it as a זכר למקדש.  This would be the approach of the Bach.  What is unclear to me is that in the world of Hillel the Rishonim say we would do the maror together with matzah.  In other words, there would be a takkanah to eat the matzah together with the maror as the zecher liMikdash even though it is an incomplete mitzvah.  So, why would we not say the same thing for us that do like Hillel and say that we do matzah with maror as a takkanah of zecher limikdash?  In other words, not like the Bach that we eat korech as a zecher to past times, but there is a takkanah of doing the mitzvah of maror zecher liMikdash just like we say according to Hillel? As will be explained in essence that is the approach of R' Braun in the Alter Rebbe.    

The Alter Rebbe paskens (475:16) like Rashi that the korech of Hillel is pesach, matzah and maror. However, in the next halacha he says that according to Hillel we eat korech in order to fulfill the obligation of maror.  (That's why he says in sif 18 the beracha of matzah and maror also goes on the korech and one should not speak in the middle.)  What is the point of doing korech with just matzah and maror if that doesn't fulfill the mitzvah of maror anyway since it is not being eaten with the pesach?  In other words, how can the Alter Rebbe say like Tosfos that we ate korech to fulfill the mitzvah according to Hillel (whether that means the mitzvah of kricha or the mitzvah of maror,) if that can't be fulfilled anyway since there is no korban Pesach?  He should say we eat the korech only as  zecher liMikdash like the Ramban and Ran?  And why does he say the beracha of matzah also goes on the korech, the korech is only done to fulfill the mitzvah of maror, what does it have to do with them matzah? 

Rabbi Shochet suggests that the Alter Rebbe holds there is an independent mitzvah of korech and that is only fulfilled with all three items of koran pesach, matzah and maror together.  However, he holds that what Tosfos writes is true even according to Rashi that the mitzvah is all three because the mitzvah of maror is said to be done in a kricha (according to Hillel.)  So, therefore we are fulfilling the mitzvah of maror which is to be done is a kricha when we do korech.  In order to fulfill this law, there is a takkanah to eat matzah again in order to be able to fulfill the kricha.    

Rabbi Yeshayu Braun is not happy with this idea that there is a din in maror that it must be eaten in a kricha  irrespective of the general law of everything being eaten in a kricha according to Hillel.  He says the peshat in the Alter Rebbe is that the entire mitzah of maror, the Alter Rebe says in sif 15 is a זכר למקדש.  In other words, the maror we eat is not a takkanah to remember the bitterness of slavery but to fulfill the mitzah as was done in the Mikdash.  Hence, we are faced with  a problem according to Hillel for that is impossible since there is no korban Pesach? Therefore, the Chachamam had to make a taakkanah to do a kricha which is the mostly closely patterned after how it was done in the Mikdash in order to be able to fulfill the "maror of the Mikdash."  For this takkanah it was necessary to make an obligation of matzah and maror to be eaten together.  In other words, donig korech is a takkanah in order to facilitate a מעין of the true fulfillment of maror.  With this idea he explains why we say זכר למקדש כהלל, why do we say it, and why does the Alter Rebbe say to say it before eating the korech, why are we not worried about it being a הפסק like the Mishna Berura asks?  Since the korech is not actually doing the cheftzah of the mitzvah in the Mikdash since we are lacking the Pesach, in order to acknowledge its function as a זכר למקדש we proclaim our actions are a זכר למקדש  and is not considered a הפסק for it is part of creating the זכר למקדש.  .  

However, in the end, the Taz backs down for the Tur indicates that speaking does not disqualify the korech bidieved.  Rabbi Braun wants to say not like R' Schochet that the P.M.'s explanation of Tosfos is standing even in the initial thought process of the Taz and we are forced to explain there is some kium even after eating matzah and maror.  Rather, the Pri Migadim is mainly coming to address the conclusion of the Taz in which he agrees the korech comes only as a zacher to what Hillel did.  However, even Rabbi Braun is forced to acknowledge that the Pri Migadim's words also came to address the first approach of the Taz that the korech is more than a mere zecher and in that approach the Rabbinic takkanah of korech would be more strict that the true Bibical enactment and it would be מעכב.   

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.)   

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.     

Celebrating Become A Servant

Rav Yerucham Levovitz (Daas Chachma U'mussar maamer 41,43) elaborates that the avodah of Pesach, of the seder night, is to accept upon one's self the avdus of Hashem.  The point of leaving Egypt was not to just leave Egypt, but is to become the avadim of Hashem. (He says this is part of the obligation of hakaras hatov that one owes to one that does them a favor to to do that person's bidding and the obligation of hakaras hatov to Hashem obligates us to become His avadim.)  

This is what the Midrash Tehillim (Ch, 113) says באותה הלילה שנגאלנו ויצאנו מעבדות לחירות שהיינו עבדים לפרעה וגאלתנו ונעשינו עבדים לך שנאמר הללוקה הללו עבדי ה.  The Midrash says further on that when Pharaoh told Moshe to leave already he said,  אמור הרי אתם בני חורין הרי אתם ברשותכם הרי אתם עבדים של הקב"ה. התחיל פרעה צווח ואומר לשעבר הייתם עבדי אבל עכשיו הרי אתם בני חורין הרי אתם ברשותכם והרי אתם עבדיו של הקב"ה צריכים אתם להלל לו שאתם עבדיו שנאמר הללויה הללו עבדי ה', Pharaoh had to declare not only are you free but you are not the servants of Hashem, built into the very act of freeing Klal Yisrael is the acceptance of the avdus of Hashem.  The Maharal (Gur Aryeh Bo 12:6) explains the two mitzvot of milah and dam pesach represent the badge of being an eved Hashem (milah) and an act of avdus (pesach) for that is what is necessary for going free; accepting the service of Hashem.  

The Midrash says צריכים אתם להלל לו, the acceptance of the avdus of Hashem is an impetus to sing hallel.  Normally, one who is an eved is not rejoicing but to become an eved Hashem is the greatest merit for a person.  

The Seder Experience

The Targum Onkles on the words ויגד (such as in Vayechi 48:2 וַיַּגֵּד לְיַעֲקֹב) is וְחַוִּי which means to demonstrate.  The Shem MiShmuel says in the name of his father, the Avnei Nezar that the mitzvah of והגדת לבנך is to demonstrate, illustrate and experience the story of yitzias mitzaraim, not to merely recount the events.  In other words, the mitzvah is to experience the Exodus, not to merely say the words.  

We say in the Haggadah, וַאֲפִילוּ כֻּלָּנוּ חֲכָמִים כֻּלָּנוּ נְבוֹנִים כֻּלָּנוּ זְקֵנִים כֻּלָּנוּ יוֹדְעִים אֶת הַתּוֹרָה מִצְוָה עָלֵינוּ לְסַפֵּר בִּיצִיאַת מִצְרָיִם. וְכָל הַמַּרְבֶּה לְסַפֵּר בִּיצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח, And even were we all wise, all intelligent, all aged and all knowledgeable in the Torah, still the command would be upon us to tell of the coming out of Egypt; and the more one tells of the coming out of Egypt, the more admirable it is.  Why is there an obligation to recount the story of the Exodus even for people who are advanced Torah scholars that already know all the details?  Because the mitzvah is not merely about relaying facts, ideas and words, the mitzvah is to relive the events of the Exodus in a palpable manner and that can only be accomplished on the night of the Seder.  

This idea is hinted to in the Haggadah using the word לספר which literally means to say the story. The previous Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rebbe Yosef Yitzchak says the word לספר also means a shining sapphire for the point of the Seder night is to make the events of yitzias mityzraim so clear they illuminate a person's heart.  The avodah of the night is to make the story come alive.  That is what the Haggadah continues כָל הַמַּרְבֶּה לְסַפֵּר בִּיצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח, the praise of adding to the Haggadah is not about adding more words, כָל הַמַּרְבֶּה לְסַפֵּר, the more the experience is clear, the more it is felt and illuminates a person, that is the a praiseworthy activity.  The Seder night is not just a night to recount, to say stories, it is a night of reliving, experiencing and bringing to life yitzias mitzraim and all of its lessons.

Holiday Of Speaking

Moshe Rabbenu says to Hashem in the beginning of Vaerah, הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי ואיך ישמעני פרעה ואני ערל שפתים.  Why is Moshe saying he can't talk due to his speech impediment if he already said in Parshat Shemos לא איש דברים אנכי גם מתמול גם משלשם גם מאז דברך אל עבדך כי כבד פה וכבד לשון אנכי and Hashem responded,ועתה לך ואנכי אהיה עם פיך והוריתיך אשר תדבר  ויאמר ה אליו מי שם פה לאדם או מי ישום אלם או חרש או פקח או עור הלא אנכי ה, Hashem already responded that he Moshe's lack of proper speech would not be an issue?  Furthermore, why did Moshe say in Shemos כבד פה וכבד לשון and here he says ערל שפתים?  And what is the ק"ו if Klal Yisrael won't listen, for sure Pharaoh won't, he doesn't have the קוצר רוח? 

The Zohar Vaerah (25b) asks the question of what is Moshe asking about now and answers (translated into Hebrew) אלא סוד הוא; משה - קול, והדיבור, שהוא המלה שלו, היה בגלות, והיה הוא סתום מלפרש דברים. ובשל כך אמר "ואיך ישמע אלי פרעה" - 'בעוד שהמילה שלי נמצאת בגלות, שהרי אין לי מילה, הרי אני קול בלי מילה, שהיא בגלות'. ועל כן שיתף הקב"ה את אהרן איתו.  The dibbur was in galus in Egypt and therefore Moshe could not speak.  How does the Zohar answer the question, it was the same golus as before and Hashem already told Moshe that he would not have a problem?  And how does adding Aharon help if the dibbur is in golus? 

One of the reasons Chazal give for the golus in Egypt is that Abraham Avenu said בַּמָּה אֵדַע כִּי אִירָשֶׁנָּה (Nedarim 32a.)  Avraham misspoke and that led to the golus.  The golus in Egypt started due to the chain of events of the lashan harah spoken by the brothers about Yosef.  Again, a misuse of speech.  And Moshe feels the golus in justified after he experiences the lashon harah of Dasan and Aviram where he sees speech is misappropriated.  The Sfas Emes (5632) says that is what the Haggadah means אנוס על פי הדיבור.  How was it אנוס, Yaakov wanted to go see Yosef?  He cites the above Zohar and reads Yaakov was forced to fix up dibbur (a reference to Yosef, in his words ופי הדיבור הוא יוסף והמש"י, presumably because Yosef is yesod and the ברית הלשון והמעור מכוונים זה לזה.)  The golus had to happen to fix the miscues in speech.  The golus was into Egypt, the land controlled by פרעה which is the letters פה רע, a bad mouth.  He was the epitome of bad speech. 

The Midrash says וּבַיּוֹם שֶׁיָּרְדוּ לְמִצְרַיִם, בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם עָלוּ, וּבוֹ בַּיּוֹם יָצָא יוֹסֵף מִבֵּית הָאֲסוּרִין, לְכָךְ הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה שִׂמְחָה לְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים הוּא לַה.  The same day of the start of the golus is the say of redemption.  Hence, on the day of going into golus because of speech, is the day of the tikkun where we have a mitzvah to speak about the miracles.  Hence Klal Yisrael leaves passing פי החירות, the mouth of freedom, now their mouths were opened.  בְּצֵאת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרָיִם בֵּית יַעֲקֹב מֵעַם לֹעֵז, when we left Egypt we were redeemed from the nation of strange tongue, out mouths became opened.  אנכי ה אלקיך הַ֖מַּֽעַלְךָ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם הַרְחֶב־פִּ֜֗יךָ וַֽאֲמַלְאֵֽהוּ, since you left Egypt your mouth is now open to receive divrei Torah (see Berachos 50a.)  The Sefer Yetzirah says about the month of Nissan המליך אות ה' בשיחה כו.  Nissan is the month of speech (the ה is connected with תורה שבעל פה, as Rav Tzaddok (Rosh Chodesh Nissan 1) elaborates about.)  

Rav Tzaddok notes that the berachot were received by Yaakov on Pesach.  The beracha of הקול קול יעקב, the power of the voice of Yaakov was established on Pesach.  The ammunition of Klal Yisrael to stand through the golus is the power of speech which becomes established on Pesach.  

When Hashem directs Moshe to speak it is not to speak empty words.  The words of Moshe have an effect on the world.  In order for that effect to be actualized there has to be a recipient.  If the words fall on deaf ears they don't have any effect.  The Be'ar Moshe explains the קל וחומר of Moshe.  The sense of speech and hearing go hand and hand.  One learns to talk by listening to others.  He reads מקוצר רוח, the רוח as a reference to the רוח ממלא of a person, the power of speech was removed from Klal Yisrael and hence they did not have the power to listen to the message of Moshe Rabbenu.  (The Midrash attributes the lack of Klal Yisrael listening to their sins, in other words it is not the work in a physical sense that made their ears dull to the message but they were so lost in the golus they could not envision Hashem taking them out, they were incapable of absorbing words of freedom.)  The Sfas Emes (previous piece) continues, כמ"ש במ"א פי' זוה"ק הנ"ל שדיבור שהוא הכרת מלכותו ית' בכל הדברים. זה הי' נסתר בגלות. וע"י גאולת מצרים נודע גבורתו ית.  The word for thing and speech in lashon hakodesh is דבר for all things are composed of the words of Hashem which is their life force (as explained in the Tanya Shaar Hayichud Ve'emunah,) and  Klal Yisrael lost their ability to see the Divine in everything.  They lost the understanding of dibbur and required the 10 maakot to bring it back.

The ק"ו of Moshe is Bnei Yisrael who are closer to Hashem are so lost in the golus that they can't hear the message of freedom, for sure פרעה, the פה רע himself, will not be able to absorb anything I am telling to him.  This is what the Moshe is asking Hashem.  Beforehand, my speech was כבד, it was difficult, but there was somewhere for the words to 'land' because Klal Yisrael may have absorbed the message.  However, now, after Pharaoh said תכבד העבודה and removed the day of rest of Shabbas, that little bit of spiritual respite in which the ears of Klal Yisrael may be slightly opened, now I am totally ערל שפתיים, I am closed entirely, there is no room for words to be able to have an effect.  The golus of the dibbur has totally removed my capabilities to say anything.  Hashem says that I will provide with Aharon.  Since Aharon is a man of the people, the אוהב שלום ורודף שלום, he is able to provide the people with a message of Hashem that will uplift them (based upon Rav Tzaddok Vaerah 6,7.)      

The Evan Era (14:4) says והנה המצורע והבית המנוגע וטמא מת קרובים, והנה גם הם כדמות פסח מצרים.  The taharah process of the metzorah with the  עץ ארז ושני תולעת ואזוב parallels the blood put with the עץ ערז on the doorpost and the bird is akin to the korban pesach.  The tahara of the metzorah resembles what Klal Yisrael did at makkas bechorot.  Why?  Because the sin of the metzorah is for misusing his/her speech.  They go into a mini golus like the golus of mitzraim to fix the problem and they need a mini yitzias mitzraim in order to rehabilitate their power of speech.

4 Cups, 4 Negaim, 4 Stages of Golus

One of the opinions in the Midrash (Berashis Rabbah 88:5) is that the takkanah of the 4 cups of Pesach corresponds to the 4 different גליות Klal Yisrael goes through, רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר כְּנֶגֶד אַרְבַּע מַלְכֻיּוֹת.  What is the connection between the 4 מַלְכֻיּוֹת and the 4 cups?  The Midrash Tazria (15:9) (cited last year on the blog) says the 4 types of negaim (שאת ספחת בהרת נגע צרעת) correspond to the 4  מלכיות.  What is the connection between these these two ideas?  

As mentioned many times before (2022, 2019) a nega itself is not a negative force but is a tremendous source of spirituality which contaminates a person who does not have the capability to withstand such bursts of spiritual energy.  However, ultimately the point of the nega is to allow a person to realize their faults and to fix themselves to be a proper receptacle to hold the spiritual bolts and when one does that they actually become elevated as an account of going through the whole process of the tumah and taharah that goes along with a nega.  Th message the Midrash is trying to teach us is that the journey, the golus through the 4 מַלְכֻיּוֹת is the same way.  Although it is a difficult process, the point of the journey is to be able to accomplish, to reach greater heights than what could not have been reached without the hard journey.  The Gemarah Pesachim (87b) says לא גלו ישראל אלא שיתוספו עליהם גרים.  With this we can understand the Gemarah Kiddushin (70b) קשים גרים לישראל כספחת.  Since the hardships of golus are all for the sake of the ger, he is like the ספחת, the tzaaras that once has to suffer through in order to be able to access greater kedusha, so too Klal Yisrael has to suffer in order to bring the ger to kedusha (see Sfas Emes Yisro 5652.)  

That is the comparison of the 4 kingdoms to the 4 cups.  On the night of Pesach we remind ourselves of the slavery and rejoice in the redemption.  We appreciate the journey is a means of obtaining greater spiritual heights.  Chazal sought to remind us the same is true through our journey through golus.  The golus provides us with ability to e ready to receive geulah.  The Maharal (Gevuot Hashem Ch. 60) adds that is specifically the act of drinking that corresponds to the 4 kingdoms.  Drinking is not the main part of the meal but is there to help the food go down; it is there to accompany he food.  So too the various goliout are only in order to help the main course, Klal Yisrael to navigate their way to be come readied for redemption.

Rise Up

The yetzer harah is the שאור שבעיסה, by fighting against it, one rises.  It is there to help one rise up when one fights against.

From the חסד לאברהם (Rodamsk)

This is why the Haggadah must be said דרך שאלה ותירץ because it is only through the questions, the difficulties, the challenges, that redemption comes.  That is the idea of מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח.  By not ignoring or glossing over the failures, the setbacks, but seeing them as a progression to the future, is there a סיום of שבח (see Pachad Yitzchak maamer 17.)

Starting The Seder

The haggadah opens with the passage of הא לחמא עניא  (after בבהילו יצאנו ממצרים for those that follow the Rambam's text.)  There are many questions that are asked on this small passage.  What is the connection between the three statements of the bread our father ate, inviting people and a prayer to be in Jerusalem?  Why are we inviting people after the seder has already started?  Why are we inviting people to come partake in the pesach if we don't have a korban pesach these days?  How can we invite people to eat the pesach offering if one has to have already enjoined the group to be allowed to eat the korban pesach?  What is the difference between the דכפין that we invite to eat and the יצטרך that we invite to partake in the pesach?  Why are some invited to partake of the pesach and some invited to eat?  

Sometimes one sits down to the seder feeling unprepared.  Despite all the many preparations people make for Pesach, it never seems to be enough.  Sometimes the one leading the Seder himself or those around the table need to welcome themselves to the Seder.  They need to put aside all their deficiencies and conduct the Seder.  The Haggadah attempts to introduce the Maggid section by assuaging a person's fears that they are ill prepared to have a Seder.   הָא לַחְמָא עַנְיָא דִּי אֲכָלוּ אַבְהָתָנָא בְּאַרְעָא דְמִצְרָיִם.  This bread was eaten in Egypt, Klal Yisrael was a low level, sunk into the tumah of Egypt, yet they managed to get out.   

There are two different levels of people lacking.  There are those that know what to do at the Seder but feel that they are a little lacking.  For those we say כָּל דִּכְפִין יֵיתֵי וְיֵיכוֹל, those that are hungry for spirituality, those that want more, יתֵי וְיֵיכוֹל, come and partake.  These are those that are far removed that they need a quantum leap to be ready for the Seder and for those we say כָּל דִּצְרִיךְ יֵיתֵי וְיִפְסַח, those that are not just hungry, but are lacking the essentials, they too can come וְיִפְסַח and jump over the prerequisites normally necessary to be ready.  

הָשַׁתָּא הָכָא – לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה בְּאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל הָשַׁתָּא עַבְדֵּי – לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.  Just as in the past Klal Yisrael was redeemed despite the fact that they might have been 'hungry' or even 'needy', so too will happen to us.  Hence, we can sit down to the Seder, each person according to their ability and the results will take care of themselves. 

Eat And Eat

The halacha is that the korban pesach must be eaten על השובע, when one is already satiated.  This din according to Rashi (86a ד"ה אין מפטירין) applies to all korbanot and is learnt from למשחה, that kodshim must be eaten just as kings eat. In his words, שכן חובת כל הקרבנות כדקיימא לן למשחה לגדולה כדרך שהמלכים אוכלין. 

However, the Mechilta says על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו" (במדבר ט, יא), מכאן אמרו: הפסח נאכל אכילת שבע, ואין מצה ומרור נאכלים אכילת שבע.  According to the Mechilta it is a din specific to the pesach that it must be eaten על השובע.  However, what is wrong with the general din of למשחה, why does the Mechilta feel the need to come up with a different source?    The Rambam (Korban Pesach 8:3) says that the chagigah is eaten before the pesach so that the pesach will be eaten על השובע.  In other words, the din of על השובע is only a din in korban pesach.  The source of the Rambam is a berasah in Pesachim (70a) and it is צ"ע according to Rashi what is the reasoning of the berasah that the chagigah is eaten first so that the pesach shall be eaten על השובע if the chagigah has the same din?    

The Rambam perush hamishna Zevachim (10:7) says אמר רחמנא בדברים שהכהן אוכל למשחה.  He holds that למשחה only applies to parts of a korban that the kohan eats.  In light of this Rambam we can understand that there would be no din of למשחה for korban pesach since it is a korban that non-kohanim eat.  (One may understand the Rambam may be lishitaso that the mitzvah of eating kodshim is only on the portion that the kohan eats, see Briskor Rav Menachot 21b., in which case, pesach in which there is a mitzvah to eat it would have the din of למשחה.)  That may be why the Mechilta needs a new limud to tell us that the pesach has to be eaten על השובע (Briskor Rav.)  

Tosfot Pesachim (70a) cites from the Yerushalmi a different reason why the pesach is eaten על השובע and that is so that won't be ravenous and come to break a bone of the pesach.  Why is the Yerushalmi not satisfied with the with the reason of the Bavli so that the pesach is eaten על השובע?  It is possible that the Yerushalmi holds that למשחה doesn't apply on non-kohan portions and does not hold of the derash of the Mechilta and therefore needs a Rabbinic reason to explain why the pesach must be eaten על השובע. 

The Mordechai (end of Pesachim) says the Yerushalmi was bothered by the question we asked on Rashi.  Why put the chagigah before the pesach so that the pesach is eaten על השובע if the chagigah has the same din?  Therefore, the Yerushalmi enters a new reason as to why it is important for the pesach to come after the chagigah.

Hagadol

A few interesting tidbits.

Chizkuni (Bo 12:3) says it is called Shabbat Hagaol because it was the first mitzvot that Klal Yisrael were commanded.  What does that have to do with gadol? 

The Haggadah Maseas Hamelech cites in the name of a kadmon (he doesn't specify the source,) that it is called Shabbat Hagadol because the law of tosefes Shabbat was commanded that Shabbat (see his explanation why then.)  According to this interpretation, presumably it is called Shabbat Hagadol because the Shabbat is actually longer.  (According to this peshat it has nothing to do with 10 Nissan.)

Rabbenu Manoach Caametz Umatzah (5:26) asks why is there no beracha on hagaat kelim for Pesach.  What is his question, it is just a koshering process to remove the issur, why is it different from any time one needs to kasher a vessel that became treif? 

The Haggadah Pesach Dorot (by a kadmon) says that the din of ד' כוסות is a takannah of Moshe Rabbenu.

Forever

The Rambam does not count the mitzvah of mentioning yitziat mitzraim on a daily basis in his count of the mitzvot.  Why does he not count it as a mitzvah?  Rav Chayim explains since the Rambam rules like Ben Zoma that כל ימי חייך comes to include the night, not in the times of Moshiach, the need to mention yitziat mitzraim on a daily basis will not apply in the times of Moshiach.  The Rambam therefore, does not count it as a mitzvah for the Rambam says (Sefer HaMitzvot shoresh 3,) only mitzvot that last forever are counted as mitzvot.  If that is the case, why is the mitzvah of sippur yitzias mitzraim counted as a mitzvah, why will it be still be recounted in the times of Moshiach and not be overshadowed by the great miracles that will occur then?  Obviously sippur will not be overshadowed and is distinct from zechira; what is the distenction?

Every Dor

The Noam Elimelech beginning of Shemos says: אזי בכל פעם שעולה ובא בבחינה אחרת יתירה זה נקרא בשם 'דור', דהבחינה הראשונה שהיה מתנהג בה, כל ימי נהוגו בה היא כמו 'דור', ואחר שנופל מבחינה זאת ונופל לבחינה אחרת, הרי הוא כמו שבא בדור אחר. וזה הוא "דור הולך ודור בא", פירושו כנ"ל, שזה נופל מבחינה ראשונה שהיה מתנהג עד הנה, הבחינה הזאת הולכת ממנו זה "דור הולך", "ודור בא", ג"כ כנ"ל שבא לבחינה אחרת.  Every advance in one's spiritual path is called a דור.  It is for him like a new generation, a new world of existence.  

In light of this we can say בדרך דרוש that is בכל דור ודור חיב אדם לראות את עצמו כאלו הוא יצא ממצרים.  Every spiritual salvation is a freedom from the constraints and servitude of the previous level.  

אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּכָל דּוֹר וָדוֹר עוֹמְדִים עָלֵינוּ לְכַלּוֹתֵנוּ.  Every elevation has those that attempt to hold one back but we are helped by Hashem to be able to raise our selves above them.