Pesach Hagada

Just a few today, a few he'aros on haggadah. In the כנגד ארבעה בנים דברה תורה, so the

חכם מה הוא אומר מה העדות והחוקים והמשפטים אשר צוה ה' אלוהינו אתכם.

And

רשע מה הוא אומר מה העבודה הזאת לכם? לפי שהוציא את עצמו מן הכלל כפר בעיקר.

So the obvious question is why does the if the rasha is indicted and condemned for מה העבודה הזאת לכם, so why does the ben chacham say אשר צוה ה' אלוהינו אתכם? He also seems to remove himself from the loop, from the chiyuv. Obvious kasha. So b'emes the Gra is magiah and says the correct girsa should be לפי שהוציא את עצמו מן הכלל וכפר בעיקר that the contrast between the chacham and the rasha is that the chacham attributes the mitzvos to the Ribbono Shel Olam, asher tziva Hashem. Whereas the rasha says מה העבודה הזאת לכם that as though what this avodah that you people made up. That לפי שהוציא את עצמו מן הכלל וכפר בעיקר. But b'emes even with that very very mistabdike hagah of the Gra, the question still remains that wouldn't it have been more consistent and more logical for the chacham to have said אשר צוה ה' אלוהינו אותנו? So kimdumeini the pshat is as follows. Having said אשר צוה ה' אלוהינו and leaving no room for any ambiguity as to his kabbala of Torah and to his recognition of Torah u'mitzvos, so then it is more appropriate for the chacham to say eschem rather than osanu. And the reason for that being that by saying eschem the ben chacham basically is machnia himself, submits and subordinates himself to the earlier doros in the masorah. And by saying אשר צוה ה' אלוהינו אתכם, so basically what the ben chacham is saying is that yes, the tzivuy is equally to me the way it is to you. And I certainly don't mean to imply what the ben rasha does by saying מה העבודה הזאת לכם. But having dispelled that possible misunderstanding or confusion by saying אשר צוה ה' אלוהינו, so then the ben chacham says it as an expression of his respect and of his bitul vis-a-vis the earlier, even if it's just one generation above him, in the link of masorah, so he says אשר צוה ה' אלוהינו אתכם, that you in terms of masorah, so you have the masorah and you are closer than I am to Har Sinai, so therefore you explain this tzivuy which you have received בדרך מסורה בדרך קבלה and explain it to me. And having said אשר צוה ה' אלוהינו where the eschem cannot be misunderstood, so then on the contrary the eschem actually adds a very very important dimension to the question of the ben chacham. I want to share a question with you. I'm not going to answer it today but perhaps later this week we will come back to it which someone posed to me the other day. The Gemara keyadu'a towards the end of Arvei Pesachim, ארבע כסי תקנו רבנן on the bottom of

דף קיז עמוד ב, ארבע כסי תקנו רבנן דרך חירות, כל חד וחד נעביד ביה מצוה.

So the Gemara here says in the mefurash that whatever else, whatever other dimensions and kiyummim there are in Dalet Kosos, so Dalet Kosos is derech cheirus. Dalet Kosos is an expression of cheirus. So the question that this person posed was as follows: Again the question is be'emes in the Gemara minei ubei, but it's even sharper within the Rambam. And that is the sugya on daf kuf ches. So the Gemara says that אתמר משמיה דרב נחמן that yayin tzarich haseiba יין אינו צריך הסיבה. The Gemara says velo peligi הא בתרתי כסי קמאי הא בתרתי כסי בתראי. And then אמרי לה להאי גיסא ואמרי לה להאי גיסא. Or in other words me-ikar hadin only two of the four kosos require haseiba, and it's just that since we don't know which, whether it's the first pair or the second pair, so השתא דאתמר הכי ואתמר הכי כולהו בעו הסיבה. But me-ikar hadin it's really two kosos require haseiba. The question is given the fact, given the fact that all the kosos are derech cheirus, that all the kosos are derech cheirus, so why shouldn't that be sufficient reason for haseiba by the Dalet Kosos? It's clear from the Gemara that that the etzem mitzvah of Dalet Kosos per se, the etzem mitzvah of Dalet Kosos per se doesn't link up with haseiba. And therefore it's only a question of השתא דקא מתחלה לחרות or on the contrary that the now, now we're bnei chorin. Now we're bnei chorin. But the עצם עצם שתיית ד׳ כוסות per se isn't an occasion or a mechayiv in haseiba. So given the fact that the Dalet Kosos themselves are derech cheirus, and especially within the famous shitas ha-Rambam which Velvel and the Rav spoke about where the Rambam says in Perek Zayin of Hilchos Chametz U’Matzah

בכל דור ודור חייב אדם להראות את עצמו כאילו הוא בעצמו יצא עתה משעבוד מצרים. ועל דבר זה צוה הקדוש ברוך הוא בתורה שנאמר וזכרת כי עבד היית כלומר כאילו אתה בעצמך היית עבד ויצאת לחירות ונפדית.

Lefichach. And again as we've discussed in past years, so the Rambam says pretty clearly that haseiba is a kiyum d'oraisa, is a kiyum d'oraisa in bechol dor vador

כשסומך אדם בלילה הזה צריך לאכול ולשתות והוא מיסב דרך חירות.

Since there is a chiyuv of חייב אדם להראות את עצמו, so mimeila that's why Chazal, it was to implement that chiyuv that Chazal said that we should be meiseiv derech cheirus. And then the Rambam continues

וכל אחד ואחד בין אנשים בין נשים חייב לשתות בלילה הזה ארבעה כוסות של יין.

And again the impression just from the smichas haparshiyos in the Rambam, and it's reinforced later in halacha tes, it's not just an impression but here it's already pretty clear here as well that two things the Rambam is telling us of two chiyuvim which Chazal introduced again to implement the d'oraisa bechol dor vador. One is haseiba and the other is Dalet Kosos. So again given the fact that the etzem mitzvah of Dalet Kosos is derech cheirus, is derech cheirus, so why isn't that ample reason for haseiba? And why is it only whatever happens to be going on at the time? So there's an important perspective on haseiba is to be gleaned from that kasha. And again the fact that the Dalet Kosos are derech cheirus, again it's clear it's clear from the Gemara in kuf yud zayin, it's clear from the Rambam's juxtaposition with haseiba in halacha zayin, the Dalet Kosos is also part of lefichach, and again it's reinforced in halacha ches when the Rambam quotes the Gemara on ק״ח עמוד ב׳ if you drink yayin she'eino mazug, the yayin in times of Chazal had to be diluted, it was too strong, so if you drink yayin she'eino mazug, so the Gemara says that yedei Dalet Kosos yatza. So the Rav has that yedei daled kosos, that you had daled kosos and that you had סידור ברכות על הכוס, that you have, but that you had the daled kosos derech cheirus, that you didn't have because if it's not a shtiya areiva, which yayin she'eino mazug clearly isn't, so then you haven't been yotze this derchei cheirus, you haven't been yotze the cheirus. So again whether this is a kasha or whether this is a he'ara, but there's what to be inferred from this fact that notwithstanding that the etzem mitzvah of daled kosos itself is derech cheirus, nevertheless that per se doesn't dictate a din haseiba. Think about that. Bli neder we will talk about it later. So wanted to review one yesod which we've discussed in previous years just with an additional rayah which I just came across. In the Lefichach which precedes Hallel, which again is from the Mishna on קטז עמוד ב, so we say

הוציאנו מעבדות לחירות מיגון לשמחה ומאבל ליום טוב ומאפילה לאור גדול ומשעבוד לגאולה.

So lefi peshuto I don't know we understand this as being different descriptions or different emphases about yetzias Mitzrayim, that Mitzrayim was avdus, yetzias Mitzrayim was yagon, it was evel, it was afeila, it was shibud, that it encompassed all of these different dimensions. So the Gra here says me'avdus l'cheirus means keneged yetzias Mitzrayim. That's an allusion to yetzias Mitzrayim. Yagon l'simcha is al hayam, that refers to shvii shel Pesach, כי אז היו בצרה גדולה. Me'evel l'yom tov and this is etzel Har Sinai,

כמו שכתוב וישמע העם ולא שתו, ליום טוב שהוא יום הכיפורים שירד משה מההר עם לוחות שניות,

which refers to when Moshe Rabbeinu broke the luchos and they were told that the Ribbono shel Olam was not going to be with them, and then l'yom tov is when Hakadosh Baruch Hu forgave them beratzon. Me'afeila l'or gadol

פירוש ממדבר שהוא ארץ חושך וצלמות לארץ ישראל שהוא אור גדול.

Mishibud l'geulah

פירוש בימי השופטים היו שעבוד כמו שכתוב בשופטים, לגאולה בימי

yemei David u'Shlomo שאז היו יושבים לבטח והייתה גאולה שלמה. So the Gra says no, it's not all different emphases or different dimensions of shibud Mitzrayim, but again it refers in historical succession to different tkufos. That's what the avdus l'cheirus etc means again. Avdus l'cheirus is Mitzrayim, yagon l'simcha is al hayam, evel l'yom tov is etzel Har Sinai with the cheit ha'eigel, afeila l'or gadol is midbar to eretz Yisrael, shibud l'geulah is from shofetim to the yemei David u'Shlomo שאז היו יושבים לבטח והייתה גאולה שלמה. So I think this Gra is another rayah to the yesod which we've discussed in previous years. We talked about the prominence of zecher lemikdash the night of the seder, that zecher lemikdash is very very prominent the night of the seder. Again it's most conspicuous in korech v'zecher lemikdash ke'Hillel, and again which stands in contrast, we have other mitzvos which are zecher lemikdash, but the other mitzvos which we have zecher lemikdash we don't wave a red flag the same way we do with mitzvah korech to announce zecher lemikdash ke'Hillel. We do it, okay, so maybe maybe there's a Yehi ratzon afterwards in some cases which reflects the fact that it's zecher lemikdash by Sefiras ha'Omer and such, but there it just sort of emerges in context of a bakasha. But we never wave a flag as we do by the kricha. The Netziv says the whole reason that... even though generally, generally, most people are not, are not makpid on Netilas Yadayim for Davar Sheitibulo Bemashke all year long because they rely on Shittas HaTosafos that Bizman Hazeh it's not a chiyuv, but nevertheless the night of Pesach we do because that's also a zecher lemikdash. Also a zecher lemikdash that bizman hamikdash they did have to be nizhar on, on Netilas Yadayim for Davar Sheitibulo Bemashke. And the Netziv also suggests that that's part of the that's one of the reasons he gives for the minhag of wearing a kittel is also because when they ate the Basar Kodshim so they had to do it in Kederech Shehamelachim Ochlim so they used to wear a kittel for that purpose and that we eat the and and that's why we wear a kittel as well. The Ha Lachma Anya also, also focuses on the on the Beis Hamikdash, also focuses very much on the לשנה הבאה בארעא דישראל, also focuses very much on the on the Beis Hamikdash. So the question is, why is it, why is the Beis Hamikdash so central and why is the zecher lemikdash emphasized more the night of Pesach than it is all year long when we also have a chiyuv of ציון היא דורש אין לה מכלל דבעי דרישה, the Gemara in Sukkah? So we explained, we explained that the Rambam says מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח in the machlokes Rav and Shmuel what the shvach is, whether it's the political or whether it's the spiritual. So the Rambam says the spiritual shvach is

מסיים בדת האמת שקרבנו המקום לו והבדילנו מהאומות וקרבנו ליחודו.

So Vehivdilanu Min Ha'umos we said means that we clearly go beyond Yetzias Mitzrayim because Vehivdilanu Min Ha'umos happens b'Ma'amad Har Sinai, ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש, so that happens b'Ma'amad Har Sinai. So the Misayem Beshvach is not just the shvach which was realized immediately, which was realized immediately the night of Mitzrayim, but the shvach which Yetzias Mitzrayim was intended as a prelude to, as a preliminary to. And be'emes

מקרא מלא דיבר הכתוב וזה לך האות כי אנכי שלחתיך בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדון את האלהים על ההר הזה,

that the shvach of Yetzias Mitzrayim wasn't obviously realized bo bayom but rather that the Yetzias Mitzrayim was the first stage in the ultimate shvach. So we said that the karvanu leyichudo was fully realized in the Binyan Beis Hamikdash. In the Binyan Beis Hamikdash, that's when the karvanu leyichudo, because the Beis Hamikdash was the makom where yichud Hashem was most visibly experienced and most pronounced, as reflected in the dinim that, that, that the Shem Hamiforash used to be, used to be pronounced in the Mikdash which it can't be bagvulin. Just as the שם המפורש לעתיד לבוא will be pronounced, so too even in, in olam hazeh in the Beis Hamikdash the Shem Hamiforash was pronounced because that's where the yichud Hashem was most vividly experienced and perceived was in the Beis Hamikdash. So the ultimate shvach of מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח means that Yetzias Mitzrayim culminated in Mattan Torah and Binyan Beis Hamikdash. And we said that's also reflected in the fact that in the Dayenu, in the על אחת כמה וכמה, כמה מעלות טובות למקום עלינו that we detail all the chasdei Hashem beyond the Yetzias Mitzrayim until בנה לנו את בית הבחירה. So the obvious question is once we're going beyond Tes-Vav Nissan, once we're going beyond, beyond Mitzrayim, so סיימתינהו לכולהו חסדי דמרך, so have we exhausted all the chasdei Hashem by saying בנה לנו בית ראשון? Why don't we say and then He brought us back from Bavel and Bayis Sheni and maicha teisei that we should terminate the list here? But we said the emes is that we're really not expanding the focus beyond Yetzias Mitzrayim. It's that Yetzias Mitzrayim was not fully realized until the Binyan Beis Habechirah, until the Binyan Beis Habechirah. And that's what someone once commented when we were discussing this, that if you look in the pesukim in Sefer Melachim, so the pesukim tell you how many years it was when Shlomo built the Beis Hamikdash from Yetzias... Yetzias Mitzrayim. It cheshbons how many years it was since Yetzias Mitzrayim. And again, it's the same pshat. So all we're adding now is that be'emes according to the Vilna Gaon, so all this is really implicit in the Lefichach also. In the Lefichach also because again the Lefichach, what's pshat in the Lefichach? You have to remember what's the Lefichach. The Lefichach is, it's this way in the Mishna, it's this way in the Hagadda. The Chiyuv Hallel, the Chiyuv Hallel is based on Yetzias Mitzrayim.

בכל דור ודור חייב אדם לראות את עצמו כאילו הוא יצא ממצרים.

So the Chiyuv Hallel is for having experienced Yetzias Mitzrayim. So we're not saying Hallel for anything which is not directly a part of or implicit in Yetzias Mitzrayim. So the Chiyuv Hallel is very clearly focused. And nevertheless, says the Vilna Gaon, we go all the way until Shibud to Geulah and Geulah is bimei Dovid u'Shlomo. So lichora heim heim hadevarim. That's the same Yesod which we had suggested in past years based on these marei mekomos that again that the shvach of מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח extends until the Binyan Bais HaBechirah. We discussed a few times the Netziv's kasha and other meforshei HaHaggadah as well. Why we quote the Mishna in Berachos about Zechiras Yetzias Mitzrayim in the Hagadda? So the Netziv says a pshat that it comes to answer a kasha which is implicit in the previous paragraph here in the Hagadda, in the Mechilta.

מעשה ברבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע ורבי אלעזר בן עזריה ורבי עקיבא ורבי טרפון שהיו מסובין בבני ברק והיו מספרים ביציאת מצרים כל אותו הלילה עד שבאו תלמידיהם ואמרו להם רבותינו הגיע זמן קריאת שמע של שחרית.

So the Netziv says, what was רבי אלעזר בן עזריה doing there? According to רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, why was he there all night? According to him, Mitzvas Pesach is ad chatzos and Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim is linked to Mitzvas Pesach. So the Netziv says, well, according to רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, the Zechiras Yetzias Mitzrayim at night, so therefore it was also it remained as zman mitzvah. Ein hachi nami, the mitzvah of sippur expired at chatzos, but the mitzvah of zechirah is all night. So the problem with that we've always commented is that it's contradicted by Rav Chaim's Yesodos of what distinguishes Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim from Zechirah. That Zechirah is just a mention, whereas Sippur means to go into detail and to say Hallel and to tell others. And that Zechiras Yetzias Mitzrayim there really is no כל המרבה הרי זה משובח. So I noticed here that the Talmidei HaGra say mamash punkt farkert from the Netziv in the pshat. And they say that the point of quoting the Mishna is on the contrary, is to contrast Sippur with Zechirah. To contrast Sippur with Zechirah. לא זכיתי שתאמר יציאת מצרים בלילות. It's the contrast between te'amer, Yetzias Mitzrayim is mentioned. Zechiras Yetzias Mitzrayim is an amirah, it's a mention. Mah she'ein kein, by contrast, by contrast the Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim is lesaper, which again right away implies an arichus. And then the Rav zichrono livracha used to add that the idiom of the Sippur be- as opposed to lesaper Yetzias Mitzrayim, it should have been without the beis. So the Rav said no, the beis also implies to be me'ayen, to go in depth and to probe. Leseper be-Yetzias Mitzrayim. So on the contrary, the juxtaposition of the Mishna of Zechiras Yetzias Mitzrayim is intended to contrast Zechirah with Sippur and to underscore the differences. Okay, we move on. Ha lachma anya is be'emes not a part of the Hagaddah. What do you mean not a part of the Hagaddah? Not a part of the Hagaddah in the sense that we say Ha lachma anya number one prior to the meziga of the kos sheini. Number two, we also say prior to Mah nishtanah. Both of these point to the fact that Ha lachma anya is really not a part of the Hagaddah because the Hagaddah is said al hakos, is said al kos sheini, and therefore had Ha lachma anya been a part of Maggid, had been part of Hagaddah, so then we would have held off with Ha lachma anya until mezigas kos sheini. And number two, Ha lachma anya wouldn't have come until after Mah nishtanah. Mah nishtanah is one of the one of the details of מצוות סיפור יציאת מצרים, והיה כי ישאלך בנך, the Mechilta of beno sho'al that ein lo ben is ishto shoalah, ein lo ishto is shoalim zeh l'zeh, it is sippur yetzias mitzrayim is supposed to be told in a question-answer format. That's one of the halachos of sippur yetzias mitzrayim. That being the case, that's why the first thing we do is say Mah nishtanah so that that way everything we say subsequently is within that question-answer format. So here too, from the fact that Ha lachma anya is said prior to the questions of Mah nishtanah, so that again just reinforces the impression that we have from the fact that we say it prior to mezigas kos sheini which is that Ha lachma anya is intended as an introduction to Maggid rather than rather than actually a part of Maggid. What exactly is the introduction of Ha lachma anya? What introduction does it offer? So הא לחמא עניא די אכלו אבהתנא בארעא דמצרים, so we relate the Hagaddah we're about to say to the matzos, which is lichora a kiyum in lechem oni, in

לחם שעונים עליו דברים הרבה. כל דכפין ייתי וייכול כל דצריך ייתי וייפסח

also reflects the fact that there is a special chiyuv tzedakah as part of the mitzvos hayom of Pesach. That the din of ma'os chittim, the chiyuv ma'os chittim, the chiyuv tzedakah on Pesach, again the famous the famous pshat of the Vilna Gaon that this Yerushalmi is actually niremaz in the pesukim in Parshas Bo points to the fact that it's a special chovas tzedakah. It's a special chovas tzedakah which is bound up with the mitzvos hayom of Pesach. And therefore this too is a necessary introduction to the Seder, כל דכפין ייתי וייכול כל דצריך ייתי וייפסח. However, obviously there's much more to it than just these kiyumim of lechem oni and the fact that there's a special chiyuv tzedakah mitam mitzvos hayom of Pesach, because the Ha lachma anya was added all the meforshei Hagaddah say during Galus Bavel. And that's why it's in Aramaic. That's what the consensus of the So what we spoke about until now isn't anything which is more relevant to Maggid during Golus Bavel than it was to Maggid at any point. So l'chora the p'shat is as follows הא לחמא עניא דיאכלו אבהתנא בארעא דמצרים. Again we spoke the other day about the equation between matzah and lachma d'anyusa. So the statement of Ha Lachma Anya means is that even even under conditions of Golus Bavel, i.e., where there's no Beis Hamikdash, where the seder is is impoverished, so nevertheless we still maintain that same emunah, we still maintain that same emunah and we believe that that the Geulah Ha'asida will come and that on the contrary that our our kiyum of the seder will contribute to that, that our kiyum of the seder will contribute to that. And again l'chora here too the fact that we're so preoccupied with this theme is what we were talking about yesterday how the concern with the Beis Hamikdash is not just stam a kiyum in זכר למקדש כל היום but is an integral part is a kiyum in the mitzvah of סיפור יציאת מצרים גופא. In the Mah Nishtanah, so I think we've commented in the past the p'shat of the Vilna Gaon that מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות. So we ordinarily take this as introductory clause and the questions follow. And the Vilna Gaon says no, this is the basic question. The basic question of Mah Nishtanah is that מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות that in kol hatorah kulah, in kol hatorah kulah whenever the Torah singles out a day for a specific mitzvah be it mitzvas shofar be it mitzvas lulav so if the mitzvah is only noheges part of the day it's always noheges bayom and not balailah. It's always noheges bayom and not balailah and you never find that lailah should be singled out for a mitzvah. Okay it's a question which we won't go into now what exactly the implications of this p'shat of the Gra are for ketziras ha'omer if ketziras ha'omer has to be davka balailah but that's a separate shaila. Be that as it may, be that as it may, so the Gra says the basic basically there's one question מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות why is it or how is it that this night is distinguished from all other nights in that there are mitzvos which are meyuchados for this night which is something that we never find. We find mitzvos meyuchados either bayom u'valailah or meyuchados layom but on no other occasion do we find mitzvos which are meyuchados balailah. And basically the four questions are really three. According the the Gra says that the there is significance al pi kabala whether it's to have keneged the daled leshonos of geulah or whatever that we're makpid davka to have four. And that's why bizman hazeh when we don't have the question about basar tzli so we have the question about haseibah that we want davka four. But be'emes basically if if you look at the questions so what we're really saying and again according this is true with or without the Gra's p'shat in the opening line of Mah Nishtanah but basically what we're doing is we're highlighting the three basic mitzvos. We're highlighting mitzvas matzah mitzvas Pesach and מצות סיפור יציאת מצרים because the question of tibul the question of בין יושבין ובין מסובין again tibul certainly which is kedei sheyishalu certainly reflects the mitzvah of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim מצות סיפור יציאת מצרים and basically what we're asking is חמץ ומצה הלילה הזה כולו מצה so why was this night nisyached be'mitzvas matzah halailah hazeh maror or bizman hamikdash is basar. So this night is nisyacheid with the mitzvas achilas pasach. אינו מטבילים אפילו פעם אחת הלילה הזה שתי פעמים, again the teebul kedei sheyishalu the mitzva of sippur yetzias mitzrayim. That's what the Mah Nishtana focuses on the basic three basic mitzvos halaila. I was wondering, I didn't see, I don't know, mistama the meforshim must talk about it. I didn't look enough to know for sure, but the lashon which we say

שבכל הלילות אנו אוכלין בין יושבין ובין מסובין הלילה הזה כולנו מסובין.

According to the Rambam, I don't know that this is a kashya according to the other rishonim. But the question is what does kulanu mean? Kulanu means all of us, that there's a chiyuv haseiba on all of us. So that's not entirely accurate. The Gemara has on kof ches that אשה אצל בעלה לא בעיה הסיבה and the תלמיד אצל רבו לא בעי הסיבה. So it's not clear that kulanu mesubin that we all, that we all have the chiyuv to be meiseiv is not so clear.

אשה אצל בעלה לא בעיה הסיבה. מורא רבו כמורא שמים,

so a תלמיד אצל רבו לא בעי הסיבה. It's not, it's not the worst kashya in the world, but I was wondering maybe the pshat according to the Rambam is, keyadu'a, the Rambam says that lechatchila one's supposed to be meiseiv for the entire seuda, not just for matzah and arba cosos, but the Rambam says lechatchila there's a mitzva to be meiseiv for the entire seuda. Maybe according to the Rambam the lashon of kulanu mesubin should be understood that kulanu in the sense of we're always mesubin, that every night sometimes we're yoshvin, sometimes we're subin, we can do it either way. Maybe according to the Rambam it's a little bit nimraz here as well that kulanu mesubin according to the Rambam also implies that we should be meiseiv throughout the night, meaning not just for matzah and arba cosos, but there's a lechatchila the Rambam says, the Rama says this in Shulchan Aruch as well, that there's a lechatchila that the haseiba should be for the entire seuda, for the Shulchan Orech as well. I don't know. I'm not sure if that's correct, but maybe. We continue with עבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים. So the conventional pshat in עבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים is that this is the gnos of Shmuel. Again the machlokes in kof tes zayin of gnos and shvach, whether the gnos is מתחילה עובדי עבודה זרה היו אבותינו or the gnos is Avadim Hayinu. But this is the gnos of Shmuel. So the Rav used to say that's not correct. That's not correct. And that we'll see in a minute that just in terms of the flow of the Haggada what the Rav said is very, very compelling. And that is that after we have עבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים, so we basically seem to stop the מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח. And the next few paragraphs in the Haggada are basically the halachos of sippur yetzias mitzrayim. אפילו כולנו חכמים כולנו נבונים כולנו זקנים is mitzva aleinu lesaper וכל המרבה הרי זה משובח. Halachos of sippur yetzias mitzrayim. The next paragraph, the מעשה ברבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע ורבי אלעזר בן עזריה, again illustrates this of

וכל המרבה לספר היו מספרים ביציאת מצרים כל אותו הלילה.

Then we explained yesterday the contrast, it's further underscored by zechiros yetzias mitzrayim which is only shete'ameir, it's only a din that. It's not a din of lesaper, certainly not a din of lesaper be, it's just a din of shete'amer. And then כנגד ארבעה בנים דברה תורה is also the halachos of sippur yitziat mitzrayim כפי דעתו של בן אביו מלמדו. So these are all halachos of sippur yitziat mitzrayim. And finally culminating in

והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא יכול מראש חודש תלמוד לומר ביום ההוא אי ביום ההוא יכול מבעוד יום וכולי.

So all these are the halachos of sippur yitziat mitzrayim. So it's very strange that we begin מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח and then all of a sudden before we really finish that, so we drop everything and then we start discussing the halachos of sippur yitziat mitzrayim. So the Rav said no, the emes is as follows. The emes is that עבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים is kan ha-ben sho'el. The Mishna says kan ha-ben sho'el when you begin, when you begin Maggid, when you begin sippur yitziat mitzrayim, so again, it's supposed to be question-answer format, so kan ha-ben sho'el, kan ha-ben sho'el, so you have to respond to him. You have to give him a short brief response to his question of מה נשתנה הלילה הזה. And be-emes that's what the paragraph of avadim hayinu is. It's not our, it's not that we're beginning the מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח. It's a short response to the question of the child. Then we begin first with all the halachos of sippur yitziat mitzrayim, again, which carries us through, which carries us through והגדת לבנך יכול מראש חודש תלמוד לומר ביום ההוא, and then we begin with our מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח with

מתחילה עובדי עבודה זרה היו אבותינו. מתחילה עובדי עבודה זרה היו אבותינו.

Where then do we have Shmuel's gnos u-shvach? Shmuel's gnos u-shvach of avadim hayinu, the political gnos u-shvach, so where do we have it? So there the Rav used to say if you take a look in the Rambam, so in the Rambam when the Rambam quotes Shmuel's din, that

מתחיל ומודיע שעבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים וכל הרעה שגמלנו ומסיים בנסים ונפלאות שנעשו לנו ובחירותנו,

so the Rambam says והוא שידרוש מארמי אובד אבי עד שיגמור כל הפרשה, de-hainu, the Rambam learns pshat in the Mishna in kuf tet-zayin when the Mishna says ודורש מארמי אובד אבי עד שיגמור כל הפרשה כולה, that this is not some independent requirement within sippur yitziat mitzrayim but rather the Mishna is telling us this is the way to be mekayem מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח. The way we're mekayem מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח is

והוא שידרוש מארמי אובד אבי עד שיגמור כל הפרשה כולה.

So this is where we have Shmuel's gnos u-shvach is in arami oved avi, va-yered mitzrayma, וירעו אותנו המצרים ויענונו ויתנו עלינו עבודה קשה. So this is where we have the second gnos u-shvach. We have Rav's gnos u-shvach in מתחילה עובדי עבודה זרה, and then we have Shmuel's gnos u-shvach in darshening the parsha of arami oved avi following what the Rambam says

מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח והוא שידרוש מארמי אובד אבי עד שיגמור כל הפרשה כולה.

The Rav also always used to say why is it if Chazal wanted us to use a text from the Torah for מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח, not to make up our own text, to use a text from the Torah, so why did Chazal take such a brief, why do we choose the parsha in Ki Savo of arami oved avi? We should have, we should have learned through Shemos, Va'eira, Bo, Beshalach, that's what we should have used for מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח. That's what we should have used. So the Rav always used to answer that sippur yitziat mitzrayim is supposed to be told with Torah she-ba'al peh and the parsha of arami oved avi, that's the lashon of ve-hu she-yidrosh meaning darshen based on Torah she-ba'al peh, that the parshiyos of Shemos, Va'eira, Bo, and Beshalach, if you wanted to rely primarily on the Torah she-bi-chsav, so those would have been more suitable. But aderaba, basically the mitzvah sippur yitziat mitzrayim basically is a mitzvah of masorah of והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא לאמר, so it's basically a mitzvah of masorah. That being the case, so therefore the way to be mekayem is not just through Torah she-bi-chsav, which is not so much an inyan of masorah, but rather through Torah she-ba'al peh, which is... nimsa b'mesorah. And that's why bedafka, bedafka, v'hu sheyidrosh, not, not Sefer Shemos, but the parsha of Arami oveid avi. That's what the Rav used to say. Yitachein in light of the yesod which we reviewed yesterday of why zecher l'mikdash occupies such a prominent role in sippur yetzias Mitzrayim because we said that וקרבנו המקום לו הבדילנו מאומות וקרבנו ליחודו, first yetzias Mitzrayim, matan Torah, and binyan Beis Hamikdash. And we brought many rayos to that. So be'emes, in light of that, when you look at the parsha of Arami oveid avi, even though we don't say this pasuk, but if you look at the parsha of Arami oveid avi, Arami oveid avi also has one ever-trait which the parshios in Sefer Shemos don't have, and that is that Arami oveid avi connects yetzias Mitzrayim with the Beis Hamikdash. The Arami oveid avi is the parsha of mikra bikkurim, so it concludes with והביאנו אל המקום הזה. והביאנו אל המקום הזה. So perhaps that too, that too is, is a reason for why Arami oveid avi is especially appropriate because bedafka, because it's the parsha of mikra bikkurim, because this is the parsha which connects yetzias Mitzrayim with the binyan Beis Hamikdash. And again, as we explained yesterday, so maybe that would be another answer to that question which the Rav always used to raise. Coming back to the Mah Nishtana for a moment, the velt asked the obvious kashya. How can it be that the katan is asking about things which haven't happened yet? How can he be asking about הלילה הזה שתי פעמים? He hasn't seen a second tibul yet. And if you would hold that the first two kosos don't require haseiba, so he really hasn't seen any haseiba yet at this point. So how does the katan asking about things he hasn't seen yet? So l'chora the simple, no chiddushim here, the simple teretz is that ein hachi nami, obviously he's being coached. So obviously the katan can't be responding to what he's seen because he's asking about things he hasn't seen. Ela mai, the Mechilta says, the Mechilta says again, that if ein lo bein, so then ishto sho'alo. And if he has no wife, so then the men ask each other.

אין לו בן אשתו שואלתו. אין לו אשה שואלין זה לזה.

Sho'alin zeh lazeh. Sho'alin zeh lazeh. So what's the teretz? So here too it's somewhat, again, it's somewhat artificial, right? I mean, if sho'alin zeh lazeh, so they think they know the answers. They're not asking because they really think they don't know the answer, but they're asking for the point of asking the question. So what's the point? Al karchacha, the point is that מצות סיפור יציאת מצרים is supposed to be told in this question-answer format. It's supposed to be told in question-answer format. And therefore even if there is no child who's innocently mystified about anything that he's seen, even if there's no child present at all, but nevertheless there is a din of question-answer format. That being the case, that being the case, so then saying that we coach the child in telling the child what to ask is certainly lo gara from saying that אין לו בן אשתו שואלתו and אין לו אשה שואלין זה לזה. It's no more difficult or problematic. So l'chora the whole kashya is me'ikara lessa that ein hachi nami, so the katan taki is being coached. So what's the point? The point is to have it in the question-answer format. That's what we're trying to achieve, that's what we're trying to generate. I don't want to go through the whole Arami oveid avi now, maybe another time we will, but just one he'ara: וירד מצרים אנוס על פי הדיבור. So here too the problem is that anus and al pi hadibbur seem to have contradictory connotations. That anus sounds like he was forced. If it was al pi hadibbur, so Yaakov Avinu obviously did it willingly. Yaakov Avinu, he didn't have to be coerced into being. m'kayem what the Ribbono Shel Olam told him to do. The Ribbono Shel Olam told him told him to go down to Mitzrayim and אנוכי ארד עמך מצרימה ואנוכי אעלך גם עלה. So Yaakov Avinu didn't need to be ne'enas to fulfill the tzivuy of the Ribbono Shel Olam. So the Gra says that be'emes that that what we're reflecting here is the ma'amar chazal that ראוי היה יעקב אבינו לירד למצרים בשלשלאות של ברזל. That really, bedin hu is that in order for Galus Mitzrayim to have happened, so Yaakov Avinu would have had to be taken down beMitzrayim even totally onus. And it was a chesed that that onus was not beshalshela'os shel barzel but was rather al pi hadibbur. It was a chesed to Yaakov Avinu, meaning that Yaakov Avinu had to go down to Mitzrayim because that was the gezeira of כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא להם. That it was going to begin with Yaakov going down to Mitzrayim. יעקב וכל זרעו איתו. That was the gezeira. So really it was onus that he had to go down and it was a chesed that rather than than have that onus take the form of shalshela'os shel barzel that it be al pi hadibbur. The Rav kemidomeini once once suggested another pshat. He said as follows. Sometimes, sometimes a person does something only because there's a legitimate hetter. It's al pi hadibbur. He does it only because he has a legitimate hetter. He lives in chutz la'aretz because he wouldn't have parnassah in Eretz Yisrael. He's living in chutz la'aretz because he thinks he can study Torah better there than in Eretz Yisrael. He does it al pi hadibbur with a legitimate hetter. With a legitimate hetter. With a legitimate hetter. Ella mai, ella mai in his heart he's happy that he has the hetter. In his heart really he he wants to be here. I'm very comfortable, I like Riverdale. I'm very comfortable here. So in his heart he's it's not that he misses Eretz Yisrael. It's not that he's doing it totally leshem shamayim. Ein hachi nami, I'm doing it al pi hadibbur, but I'm doing it happily al pi hadibbur. It doesn't bother me, it doesn't bother me that that I miss Eretz Yisrael, it doesn't bother me. I do it al pi hadibbur. The pshat is, Yaakov Avinu went down, it wasn't that Yaakov Avinu was happy, oh baruch Hashem, now I have a hetter to go out of Eretz Yisrael and go to chutz la'aretz and go see... mistama Mitzrayim was the biggest metropolis, was the center of all civilization. So I can go and I can go touring. No. The pshat was he was onus al pi hadibbur. Not onus in the sense that that he had to be coerced into into fulfilling the tzivuy of HaKadosh Baruch Hu, but his only kavana, his only kavana was that it was al pi hadibbur. It wasn't that the al pi hadibbur happened to converge with something which he independently for some personal cheshbon wanted. That's what the onus al pi hadibbur means. The Aruch HaShulchan says a pshat in the Dayyenu. He says a very beautiful pshat. It could be others others say it as well. That the pshat in Dayyenu, some of the Dayyenus, a couple of the Dayyenus seem to be a little difficult to understand. A little difficult to understand.

אילו קירבנו לפני הר סיני ולא נתן לנו את התורה דיינו,

so it's a rather strange type of middas chasidus to say, no, we would have been happy with that. We didn't need the Torah. We would have been happy. It's a strange... it's a strange kind of middas chasidus to say no, this is good enough for us. We don't need any more. Meila לא נתן לנו ממונם that we're willing to be mochel on all the money of the Mitzrim, okay, is good. But we're willing to be mochel on on the Torah is Dayyenu, Dayyenu? So the Aruch HaShulchan says no, it doesn't Dayyenu, doesn't mean it would have been enough for us. Doesn't mean not in a sense of contentment. It means Dayyenu to be mechayev us in Hallel. Dayyenu, that each of these experiences which we single out, הוציאנו ממצרים עשה בהם שפטים עשה באלוהיהם הרג בכוריהם uchulu, that each of those is enough to be mechayev us in Hallel. That's what Dayyenu means. Not Dayyenu that אילו קירבנו לפני הר סיני keep the Torah, I don't need it. No, it means that even that אילו קירבנו לפני הר סיני that that already was would have been mechayev us in in Hallel veHoda'ah. על אחת כמה וכמה when the Ribbono Shel Olam did even Even more, so that's exactly what we say, so we need, our chiyuv Hallel is even greater. Alright, al achas, and that's exactly what we say, על אחת כמה וכמה that each of these would have been enough to be mechayev in Hallel, so על אחת כמה וכמה that the cumulative effect is certainly mechayev, is certainly mechayev in Hallel. And part of Nirtzah, as part of Nirtzah, so we have the Vayehi bachatzi halaylah. And we list things that happened the night of Tes-vav Nissan. Tes-vav Nissan

אז רוב נסים הפלאת בלילה בראש אשמורת זה הלילה גר צדק אברהם אבינו נצחתו כנחלק לו לילה

Vayehi bachatzi halaylah. דנת מלך גרר בחלום הלילה זה Avimelech הפחדת ארמי באמש לילה Lavan ישראל ישר ואל ויוכל לו לילה Vayehi bachatzi halaylah, Yaakov Avinu. And we continue, and then we talk about Mitzrayim, and then we go on to other miracles that happened subsequent to Yetzias Mitzrayim as well. So what's the significance of this that we catalog, I mean it's pretty impressive, but what's the significance of cataloging all these nissim which happened on the night of Tes-vav Nissan, on the night of Tes-vav Nissan? And again, does it have anything to do with, okay true, it's Nirtzah, we already drank the fourth cup, but acharei ke-chalos hakol, מנהג ישראל תורה הוא, what does it have to do with Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim? So mameila we explained based on מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח that Yetzias Mitzrayim didn't culminate until the Binyan Beis Hamikdash, and that's why we saw what the Gra says on me'avdus l'cherus, miyagon l'simcha, me'eivel l'yom tov, me'afeila l'or gadol, mishibud l'geulah. But what's the relevance of גר צדק נצחתו כנחלק לו לילה? What's the relevance that Avraham Avinu defeated the four melachim on this same night? So lichora what this piyut is intended to convey is a tremendous, tremendous yesod. And that is, we generally think that the night of Tes-vav Nissan is special and unique because it was the night of Yetzias Mitzrayim. It was the night of Yetzias Mitzrayim. That having transpired on the night of Tes-vav Nissan, so mameila Tes-vav Nissan became ledoros a special day. L'dorei doros Tes-vav Nissan now became a special day, and then it was endowed with a kedushas hayom, and we have to observe Pesach and this night of Tes-vav Nissan. But what this piyut is telling us is that be'emes we have the relationship backwards. We have the cause and effect reversed. Because were that the case, so we wouldn't have expected to find גר צדק נצחתו כנחלק לו לילה. Why is it that this happened davka on Tes-vav Nissan? Was all l'sheim ha'osid? And why was it Dantah melech Gerar and Hifchadata Arami and ישראל ישר ואל ויוכל לו לילה? So what the piyut is saying is that be'emes is that Tes-vav Nissan, Tes-vav Nissan intrinsically, inherently, the zeman was from sheishes yemei bereishis was mesugal, was especially conducive to gilluy Shechina and to geulah, to geulah. Vehara'ayah that that's the case. well before Mitzrayim, Tes Vav Nissan was already, it was already evident that Tes Vav Nissan was something special. So it's not that Tes Vav Nissan because it just so happened that the Ribono Shel Olam decided that the time was right to redeem the people and it came out on Tes Vav Nissan, so mimeila it became a special day. No, on the contrary, the reason they were nig'alu in Nissan, the reason they were nig'alu in Nissan is because the zman of Tes Vav Nissan again from shaishes yemei bereishis, the Ribono Shel Olam had endowed it with this special quality of a segulah for giluy shechina and geulah. And that's what this whole catalog of וכן ויהי בחצי הלילה is intended to underscore and to convey and to convey. Now what's implicit in that, what's implicit in that lecho again is the simple pshat in what we're saying and what we're discussing. What's implicit in that is if this is an inherent, intrinsic quality in the zman of the night of Tes Vav Nissan. Again, not just a historical occurrence that night, but is rather a quality of the zman, a special segulah within the zman, so then that means that that segulah is present every year the night of Tes Vav Nissan. It's not just, it's not just on in the year of Yetzias Mitzrayim. It's not just in the year of גר צדק נצחתו כנחלק לו לילה, but if it's, if it's really a function of the zman, that the zman has this special quality, this special segulah, so then be'emes the zman had that special quality and that special segulah every year. And the mitzvah of the night of Pesach is to try to experience that to the fullest, that we should strive through the mitzvos halaylah of of matzah, of sippur yetzias mitzrayim, of חייב אדם לראות את עצמו, that we should strive to experience again that segulah of the night of Pesach of a zman of of giluy shechina and geulah to the best of our ability.