Why mention that one sign is insufficient?

Summary: Bechor Shor explains that there is indeed a madreiga in even one sign.

Post: From parashat Shemini:

4. But these you shall not eat among those that bring up the cud and those that have a cloven hoof: the camel, because it brings up its cud, but does not have a [completely] cloven hoof; it is unclean for you.		ד. אַךְ אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה אֶת הַגָּמָל כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא וּפַרְסָה אֵינֶנּוּ מַפְרִיס טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:
5. And the hyrax, because it brings up its cud, but will not have a [completely] cloven hoof; it is unclean for you;		ה. וְאֶת הַשָּׁפָן כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא וּפַרְסָה לֹא יַפְרִיס טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:
6. And the hare, because it brings up its cud, but does not have a [completely] cloven hoof; it is unclean for you;		ו. וְאֶת הָאַרְנֶבֶת כִּי מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה הִוא וּפַרְסָה לֹא הִפְרִיסָה טְמֵאָה הִוא לָכֶם:
7. And the pig, because it has a cloven hoof that is completely split, but will not regurgitate its cud; it is unclean for you.		ז. וְאֶת הַחֲזִיר כִּי מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה הוּא וְשֹׁסַע שֶׁסַע פַּרְסָה וְהוּא גֵּרָה לֹא יִגָּר טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:
8. You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.		ח. מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ וּבְנִבְלָתָם לֹא תִגָּעוּ טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם:

R' Yosef Bechor Shor writes:

כל אלו כי משמשין בלשון אם, כלומר, אם יש להם סימן אחד, כיון שאין להם האחר אסורים, והוא כגון אע״פ, ואפילו הבא בסימן אחד טמא, כגון חזיר וגמל ושפן וארנבת טמא[ים] ואפילו הגוים אין רגילין לאכל אלא אותם הבאים בסימן אחד,
 שהאחרים מזוהמים יותר מדאי, ובזה יש להוכיח לגוים מנהגם, שמי שאין לו סימן מזוהם.

"All of these instances of כִּי function in the sense of אִם, that is to say, 'if they have a single sign, since they do not have the other sign they are forbidden.' And even that which only has a single sign is impure, such as the pig, camel, hyrax and hare are impure. And even the gentiles are only accustomed to comsume those which have {at least} one sign, for the others are exceedingly disgusting. And in this {last point} there is to prove to the gentiles {via} their custom, that one who does not have a sign is disgusting."

In terms of the last statement, I suspect that the reference is to Christian polemics regarding circumcision.

If not for this explanation, some might have thought that the reason for this stress is similar to that of the Holy Hand Grenade:


Alternatively, ambiguities in Biblical Hebrew might have otherwise misled people to think that either sign was acceptable, or else they might have lacked scientific knowledge and believed, based on many many instances, that these two signs always co-occur.

The injunction against kohanim drinking wine

Summary: with the connection, according to Bechor Shor, of it being something served to mourners, rather than it being the sin for which Nadav and Avihu were guilty.

Post: Immediately after the death of Nadav and Avihu, there is a commandment that kohanim not enter into the Ohel Moed while intoxicated:

8. And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying,		ח. וַיְדַבֵּר ה אֶל אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר:
9. Do not drink wine that will lead to intoxication, neither you nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, so that you shall not die. [This is] an eternal statute for your generations,		ט. יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל תֵּשְׁתְּ אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ בְּבֹאֲכֶם אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְלֹא תָמֻתוּ חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם:

According to one midrash, cited by Rashi, this was because Nadav and Avihu had been intoxicated, and this had been their sin:

And fire went forth: Rabbi Eliezer says: Aaron’s sons died only because they rendered halachic decisions in the presence of Moses, their teacher. Rabbi Ishmael says: [They died because] they had entered the sanctuary after having drunk wine. The proof is that after their death, [Scripture] admonished the survivors that they may not enter the sanctuary after having drunk wine. This is analogous to a king who had a faithful attendant. [When he found him standing at tavern entrances, he severed his head in silence and appointed another attendant in his place. We would not know why he put the first to death, but for his enjoining the second thus, “You must not enter the doorway of taverns,” from which we know that for such a reason he had put the first one to death. Thus [it is said], “And fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” But we would not know why they [Nadab and Abihu] died, but for His commanding Aaron, “Do not drink wine that will lead to intoxication.” We know from this that they died precisely on account of the wine. For this reason Scripture showed love to Aaron by directing the divine utterance to him alone, thus, “Do not drink wine that will lead to intoxication,”] as recounted in Vayikra Rabbah (12:1).

ותצא אש: רבי אליעזר אומר לא מתו בני אהרן אלא על ידי שהורו הלכה בפני משה רבן. רבי ישמעאל אומר שתויי יין נכנסו למקדש, תדע שאחר מיתתן הזהיר הנותרים שלא יכנסו שתויי יין למקדש. משל למלך, שהיה לו בן בית וכו', כדאיתא בויקרא רבה:

But R' Yosef Bechor Shor gives an alternate connection to the unfortunate incident:

"Wine and mead do not drink -- even though they give wine and mean to other mourners, as is written {Mishlei 31:6}:

ו  תְּנוּ-שֵׁכָר לְאוֹבֵד;    וְיַיִן, לְמָרֵי נָפֶשׁ.	6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto the bitter in soul;
ז  יִשְׁתֶּה, וְיִשְׁכַּח רִישׁוֹ;    וַעֲמָלוֹ, לֹא יִזְכָּר-עוֹד.	7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more. {P}

Even so, you {=Aharon} and your sons shall not drink, for you are forbidden when you enter into the Ohel Moed, and there is in it liability to death."

I wonder if by separating yayin and shechar here, Bechor Shor is also disagreeing with Rashi/Chazal and agreeing with Ibn Ezra as to the identity of yayin veshechar. Thus, Rashi wrote:

wine that will lead to intoxication: Heb. יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר. [שֵׁכָר does not mean other strong drink,] but wine in a manner that leads to intoxication" [namely, sufficient wine to cause intoxication, undiluted, and drunk without interruption]. — [Torath Kohanim 10:35]

יין ושכר: יין דרך שכרותו:

Thus, one entity which is yayin and shechar, intoxicating. While Ibn Ezra identifies it as:

ושכר -העשוי ממין חטה או דבש או תמרים

That which is made from a species of wheat, honey, or dates.

Shemini sources -- 2012 edition

by aliyah

rishon (9:1)

sheni (9:17)

shelishi (9:24)

revii (10:12)

chamishi (10:16)

shishi (11:1)

shevii (11:33)

maftir (11:25)

haftara (II Shmuel 6:1) -- with ralbag and malbim

by perek

perek 9

perek 10

perek 11

meforshim

Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew (France, 1040 - 1105) -- ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא, דבר דבור על אופניו

Shadal (1800-1865) -- see Wikipedia entry:

1. In plain text   here , though not encoding some of the trup and nikkud, and omitting certain references to non-Jewish scholars.
2. In Google book form  here , but with all that was omitted above. Also, with Shadal's Italian translation of the Chumash text.
3. Mishtadel, an earlier and shorter commentary
4. In determining the correct girsa of Targum Onkelos, Ohev Ger

Chizkuni

Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Lekach Tov, Yalkut Shimoni, Gilyonot.

Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew) -- see Wikipedia

Kadesh

Now it is time to hunt the rabbits. Many haggadot have pictures of rabbit hunts. That it because the German phrase jag den Häs sounds quite similar to YaKNeHaZ, meaning yayin, kiddush, ner, havdalah, zeman.

This is the order in which one recites the various brachot as part of the kiddush, depending on the particular situation. Only on Motza'ei Shabbat would one say all of these. On other nights, only yayin kiddush zeman applies.

Thus, on a regular night, then one only says yayin and kiddush:

followed of course by shehechiyanu:




If it is Friday night, then one begins with vayechulu, the standard introduction to Friday night kiddush.

These pesukim describe Hashem's role as Creator, rather than Redeemer. And that this night focuses on the latter role does not mean that the former role should get no mention.

Next up, yayin, kiddush, and zeman. This is the blessing on the wine,  sanctifying the day of Pesach (and Shabbos inclusive), and a shehechiyanu.

















And, if it is a Saturday night, then we get the full rabbit hunt. First, yayin and kiddush:

Then, ner and havdalah:

And finally, zeman:

The Order of the Seder

It is appropriate to set out for ourselves an order for the seder night:

The descriptive text in this haggadah seems almost as if it says that הלל is the fulfillment of הלל נרצה, as one unit. Perhaps not. Though the piyutim at the end of the seder are a later insertion and are not mentioned by e.g. the Tur, this Haggadah does have a section of piyutim in the back.

The Haggadah of the Ri m'Josh

To download, click here. (If that does not work, try visiting this Google site.)

Author's note:

I present here the first edition of my running commentary on the Haggadah shel Pesach. It can certainly use extensive editing. I composed it over the course of about three years as a series of blogposts. But as a result, I may be repetitious or inconsistent. And there may be many typographical and formatting errors. Likewise, I cannot guarantee that the ideas presented in here are correct, but at the least, I hope that they are thought-provoking.

My focus here is on issues of girsa and its implications; close reading of pesukim and the Haggadah text to try to better understand the details of the derasha; the composition of the Haggadah; and differing approaches of Chazal to the obligations on the seder night.

חֲסַל סִדּוּר פֶּסַח כְּהִלְכָתוֹ, כְּכָל מִשְׁפָּטוֹ וְחֻקָתוֹ. כַּאֲשֶׁר זָכִינוּ לְסַדֵּר אוֹתוֹ כֵּן נִזְכֶּה לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ.

Pesach related posts

The Haggadah of the Ri M'Josh. (Unfortunately, I did not have time to complete the edits for this year.)

2013

1. Why burn siur (partially fermented dough) before Pesach?
2. A segulah I can (sort of) support.
3. Matzah constipated Chazal
4. Why I am in favor of selling chametz

2012

1. The chacham's desire to learn Greek wisdom. And that is why he wants to learn all Torah -- so that he may then study Greek wisdom. However, the response to this is אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן.

• The Order of the Seder
• Kadesh (2012)

Why does ואת עמלני refers to sons specifically? Rav Chaim Kanievsky explains, based on a gemara that רוצה לעשות כל בניו זכרים יבעול וישנה, which entails greater tircha. And this is related to the beginning of parashat Tazria, and the famous derasha about how to have male children.


My analysis of the Haggada (starting in 2010)

In order of the haggadah, some thoughts on:

• Ha Lachma Anya (2010)
• Ma Nishtana
• Avadim Hayinu
• Harei Ani Keven Shivim Shana
• Keneged Arba Banim 
• Chacham
• Rasha
• Tam
• She'aino yodea lish'ol
• Yachol meiRosh Chodesh
• Mitechila
• Baruch Shomer Havtachato
• Tzei Ulemad
• Vayered Mitzrayma
• Bimsei Me'at
• Vayare'u Otanu
• Vanitzak (2011)
• Ve'et amaleinu (2012)
• Ve'et lachatzeinu
• Vayotzi'einu
• Beyad chazaka and bizroa netuya
• Uvemora gadol
• ובאותות ובמופתים
• davar acheir
• On calculating plagues
• Dayeinu
• Rabban Gamliel
• bechol dor

2011

1. An interesting peshat in the importance of Nissan
2. A review of the 2011 Absolut Haggada
    
3. YU Pesach to Go
4. From YU Torah, Last Minute Seder Preparation

2010

1. Why eat maror? It is to remind of the bitterness, or from some medical reason? Can we ascribe it to practical cause against the Rabbinic tradition (which also happens to make good sense)? Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Caspi. Also, how Ibn Ezra is thus frum.
   a
2. Is blood on the doorposts le-dorot? Two parses of a pasuk yields the blood on the doorposts as a command for just in Egypt, and as a recurring commandment. Similar to the structure by amah ivriya. I strongly favor the traditional parse as the better parse.
   a
3. Was it the Israelites of the Egyptians on the seashore? Two parses of the pasuk וַיַּרְא יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת-מִצְרַיִם מֵת עַל-שְׂפַת הַיָּם? The traditional one is that the Egyptians were dead on the seashore. Rashbam and Ibn Ezra differ from Rashi and the midrash, and claim that the Israelites were standing on the seashore when they saw the Egyptians dead. I side with Rashi and Shadal, in the traditional explanation. Also, does the trup indicate anything in this regard?
   a
4. Charoses and the authenticity of the Zohar -- If named Tannaim or Amoraim mentioned in the Zohar think the tapuach is the apple, but according to true Chazal the tapuach is the citron, then how could the Zohar be anything other than a forgery?
   a
5. Does an orange belong on the seder plate?
   a
6. Introducing the Absolut Haggadah, 2010 Vintage -- a link, and positive review, of that haggadah. I focus on one dvar Torah therein, about the meaning of varav, as mature. You can download the Haggadah here.
   .
7. The text of kol chamira

2009

1. My review of the 2009 edition of the Absolut Haggadah. You can download the haggadah here.
   a
2. Prepare for Pesach by learning through all of Rif on Pesachim. This year, I put it into a single convenient PDF.
   a
3. "And even you shall break his teeth": parts one, two, three, four, five.
   a
4. Does Oto HaIsh is the Haggadah refer to Jesus?
   a
5. And even you shall break his teeth -- what does this mean? part i, ii, iii, iv, v.
   a
6. The text of kol chamira. Times are from that year, though, unless I get around to updating it.
   a
7. Is Nirtza a violation of ain maftirin achar hapesach afikomen?
   a
8. Rav Shmuel Palagi's objections to the songs after Hallel (during the seder) -- part i ; part ii; part iii. And his objections against piyutim in general.
   a
9. Another take on minei zemer (as definition of Afikoman)
   a
10. The dot on the heh of rechokah, and Pesach Sheni.
    a
11. Who likes Gazalot? Further analysis of that Yerushalmi about minei zemer.
    a
12. Does Arami Oved Avi refer to a wandering / poor Aramean, or to Lavan who sought to destroy? This post deals with an interpretation of Arami Oved Avi by Ibn Ezra and Radak which goes against the classic midrashic interpretation, and the reaction of two supercommentaries of Rashi to this "daring" interpretation. What comes into play is whether Ibn Ezra and Radak can claim to have absolute knowledge of Hebrew to be able to declare the midrashic interpretation to not work out according to the rules of dikduk; and whether one can argue on midrash, as they are doing, if after the midrashic interpretation goes all the way back to Sinai! It could also be that as supercommentators of Rashi, they are simply defending Rashi's interpretation as one of peshat.a
13. The Rav on Arami Oved Avi -- Dr. David Segal told me over a peshat he heard from the Rav zt"l, in which Arami Oved Avi as expounded in the haggadah is in line with Ibn Ezra and Radak's insistence that Oved is an intransitive verb. Rabbi Wohlgelenter also heard this from the Rav. I repeat this from memory, and from a brief conversation; therefore, I hope I have the details right.
    

2008

1. Absolut Haggadah, 2008 Edition
   a
2. All of Rif on Pesachim
   a
3. One Who Dons Tefillin On Chol Chol haMoed is Chayyav Misa?
   a
4. Early Seder
   a
5. Some Fascinating Info On Dayenu, pt i
   a
6. One Who Eats Matzah On Erev Pesach
   a
7. A Redefined Kezayis, Because They Had a Smaller Strain of Olives
   a
8. What should I feed my goldfish on Pesach?
   a
9. Dueling Chumros
   a
10. Reclining Be-Benei Berak According to Abarbanel
    a
11. Rasha Mah Hu Omer -- How Do We Know This Is The Rasha?
    a
12. Elijah Drinks
    a
13. Soft Matzah
    a
14. The Prayer for an Edible Matzah
    a
15. Davening Maariv early on Shabbos on Erev Pesach
    a
16. The Pizza after Pesach segulah?
    a

2007

1. When did the heirs slaughter the son
   a
2. It Is Permitted To Own Kitniyot On Pesach!
   a
3. Why do we care that Lot ate matza on Pesach?
   a
4. Does Eliyahu haNavi Really Visit Every Seder?
   a
5. Eating Original Chazeres
   a
6. What Do You Mean, It Would Have Been Enough Had God Stranded Us On The Shore of the Reed Sea At The Mercy of the Egyptians?
   a
7. The Absolut Haggadah, 2007 Edition -- my review

2006

1. The Learner/Burner Question (7 posts)
   a
2. The Rif on Sefirat HaOmer
   a
3. Cute: Pesach seder in 60 seconds
   a
4. Sources for Yoshev Lifnei Rabbo Devar for Pesach
   a
5. Naghei vs. Leilei (7 posts)
   a

2005

1. Cute Pesach Flash
   a
2. Blunt his teeth because of his attitude, not because of his actions
   a
3. Feeding Gorillas Matzah in the run-up to Pesach. But what will they feed him Erev Pesach?

2004

• Erev Pesach Haircuts
  a
• Echad Mi Yodea and Chad Gadya
  a
• Karpas: For How Long? Entertaining the possibility that we can (and they did) eat through maggid.
  a
• Pesach : Matza : Maror - { the ":" being used to denote ratios, an examination of the Yerushalmi and Bavli regarding the eating matza, maror, the korban pesach, and korech. }
  a
• A Short Response to The (Dolorous) Passion
  a
• Round Trip Tickets - To Jerusalem and Back to Pelisium (a post from parshat Yisro)
  a
• Ruminating Upon Chad Gadya (A Suggestion of Dual Authorship)
  a
• Kol Chamira: The (Non-existent) Chazitei/Chamitei Distinction
  a
• Kol Chamira: The Chamira/Chami'a Distinction
  a
• Explaining the Miracle of the Splitting of the Reed Sea (an article from Arutz Sheva)
  a
• Ad SheDarashah Ben Zoma (Yemei Chayecha/Kol Yemei Chayecha)

to be continued...

Some thoughts on bechol dor

The same pasuk which stands as Rabban Gamliel's prooftext, baavur zeh, also establishes a chiyuv for a person, in each generation to view himself as if he himself went out of Egypt. Or alternatively, to conduct himself, showing others, as if he personally went out of Egypt.

It is a question of vocalization. לראות could have a chirik under the lamed, as pictured, in which case it means "to view himself", or it could have a patach under the lamed, in which case it is shorthand for the Rambam's alternate nusach of lehar'ot, to show himself.

Why personally? Because it states asa Hashem li, "to me", and betzeiti, "when I went out."

The pasuk, meanwhile, is cast as saying this in the future, when they have arrived and settled in the land of Israel. It was stated before the entirety of that generation was condemned to die in the wilderness, so perhaps one could argue that the was actually only targeting the generation that left Egypt, who could personally say this. Especially if we view it not as a chiyuv but as a promise to an enslaved people.

However, viewing it as an everlasting statute and chiyuv, it stands as a basis for talking about leaving Egypt in first person. How can a person do this? As stated earlier, had they not been redeemed, behold we, our children and our grandchildren would still be enslaved to Pharaoh.

"Hashem also brought us out of there." Isn't this just another prooftext saying the exact same thing as before? I don't think so. Rather, consider the context:

From Devarim 6:

20. If your son asks you in time to come, saying, "What are the testimonies, the statutes, and the ordinances, which the Lord our God has commanded you?"		כ. כִּי יִשְׁאָלְךָ בִנְךָ מָחָר לֵאמֹר מָה הָעֵדֹת וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה אֱלֹהֵינוּ אֶתְכֶם:
21. You shall say to your son, "We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, and the Lord took us out of Egypt with a strong hand.		כא. וְאָמַרְתָּ לְבִנְךָ עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ לְפַרְעֹה בְּמִצְרָיִם וַיּוֹצִיאֵנוּ ה מִמִּצְרַיִם בְּיָד חֲזָקָה:
22. And the Lord gave signs and wonders, great and terrible, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household, before our eyes.		כב. וַיִּתֵּן ה אוֹתֹת וּמֹפְתִים גְּדֹלִים וְרָעִים בְּמִצְרַיִם בְּפַרְעֹה וּבְכָל בֵּיתוֹ לְעֵינֵינוּ:
23. And he brought us out of there, in order that He might bring us and give us the land which He swore to our fathers.		כג. וְאוֹתָנוּ הוֹצִיא מִשָּׁם לְמַעַן הָבִיא אֹתָנוּ לָתֶת לָנוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ:

It could have been someone who was actually present for the Exodus who spoke this to his son. So what does this teach us? Well, realize that there are two parties to this conversation, the father and the son. The father was present. We can grant that. But the son was not present, or else he would have had no cause to ask. Yet, the pasuk says וְאוֹתָנוּ הוֹצִיא מִשָּׁם, "and He brought us out of there," rather than veOti hotzi misham, "and he brought me out of there." Thus, the son who was not present at the Exodus is included in וְאוֹתָנוּ.

(Of course, there is ambiguity here. In some languages such as Hebrew and English, the first person plural can be inclusive. If inclusive, it includes the addressee (that is, the second person). If exclusive, then it is speaking about plural people, where the speaker is a member of that group, but the second person addressee is not a member of that group. In the derasha, as opposed to in the peshat, the word וְאוֹתָנוּ is taken as inclusive.)

Thus, going back to the words of the Haggadist: Not only our fathers (such as the speaker in Devarim 6) did Hashem redeem, but also אוֹתָנוּ, us, the sons, did He redeem together with them. This was a very deliberate phrasing by the Haggadist which reveals the structure of his derasha.

And so, the first prooftext was from the perspective of the father who was not actually physically present, and the second prooftext was from the perspective of the son.

One we have internalized, or externalized, that we indeed have been redeemed, the logical conclusion is that we have an obligation to praise Hashem. This is what bridges between Maggid and Hallel.

And perhaps this is an aspect of the chiyuv of sippur, to relate the transition from gnus to shvach, as it states: from servitude to freedom, from sadness to joy, from mourning to holiday, and from subjugation to redemption, and we say before Him, Hallelukah.

This closes Maggid and, for now, this commentary on the Haggadah.

Some thoughts on matza zo and maror zeh

Just as the zevah pesach should be mentioned, so should the matza. And what significance attaches to matza, that one can see it and point to it and describe something concrete that has to do with the Exodus from Egypt? That is that they were driven out, such that their matzah did not have time to rise, but baked on their backs. Or rather, since they had to leave swiftly, they didn't bake it at home, but baked it on the road, where they did not have access to ovens. (See the Absolut Haggadah for elaboration.)

This is not necessarily the reason we eat matzah -- indeed, matzah was eaten in their homes in Pesach Mitzrayim, but it is the aspect of the redemption that looking at the matzah calls to mind, and so it is that aspect of sippur yitzias mitzrayim that should be discussed.

What prooftext could Rabban Gamliel bring that indeed one must mention matzah (and its significance), or else one did not fulfill his obligation?

It would seem to be the pasuk of Baavur Zeh. In Shemot 13:8:

6. For seven days you shall eat unleavened cakes, and on the seventh day, there is a festival for the Lord.		ו. שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל מַצֹּת וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי חַג לַה':
7. Unleavened cakes shall be eaten during the seven days, and no leaven shall be seen of yours [in your possession], and no leavening shall be seen of yours throughout all of your borders.		ז. מַצּוֹת יֵאָכֵל אֵת שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ חָמֵץ וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ שְׂאֹר בְּכָל גְּבֻלֶךָ:
8. And you shall tell your son on that day, saying, "Because of this, the Lord did [this] for me when I went out of Egypt."		ח. וְהִגַּדְתָּ לְבִנְךָ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר בַּעֲבוּר זֶה עָשָׂה ה לִי בְּצֵאתִי מִמִּצְרָיִם:

Thus, there is a juxtaposition of matza (in pasuk 6 and 7) with sippur yetzias mitzrayim (in 8). And pasuk 8 states Baavur Zeh, "because of this". Because of what? On a peshat level, I might say that the zeh is the implicit [this] above, or that זה functions as conjunctive asher, that is it is because asher Hashem did this for me.

Rashi says:

Because of this: In order that I fulfill His commandments, such as these [commandments of] the Passover sacrifice, matzah, and bitter herbs. — [from Jonathan, Passover Haggadah]

בעבור זה: בעבור שאקיים מצותיו, כגון פסח מצה ומרור הללו:

Thus, "this" refers to the commandments, such as Pesach, Matzah, Maror.

Here is what Ibn Ezra has to say:

בעבור זה -אמר רבי מרינוס: 

פירוש בעבור זה. היה ראוי להיותו הפך זה בעבור שעשה ה' לי. 

והביא רבים כמוהו לדעתו. 

ולפי דעתי: 
אין אחד מהם נכון. כי איך נהפוך דברי אלוהים חיים. וטעם הפסוק הפך מחשבתו. כי אין אנו אוכלים מצוות בעבור זה. רק פירוש בעבור זה, בעבור זאת העבודה שהוא אכילת המצה ולא יאכל חמץ, שהוא תחלת המצוות שצוה לנו השם. עשה לנו השם אותות עד שהוציאנו ממצרים. 
והטעם לא הוציאנו ממצרים רק לעבדו ככתוב: בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדון את האלהים על ההר הזה.
וכתוב: אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות לכם לאלהים.

He cites Rabbenu Yona Ibn Janach that it is reversed. Zeh, this, meaning the sacrifice, or perhaps the matzah and the maror separately of inclusive, is baavur of what Hashem did.

If so, we have the sippur which is prompted by the zeh, that "this [X, Y, Z] is because of the redemption."

Ibn Ezra does not like this explanation and instead says that "the redemption was because of our eventual [X, Y, Z]", just like Rashi.

Regardless, zeh is something you can point to. And there is the derasha we saw earlier in the Haggadah: If bayom hahu, maybe while it was yet day? No, since it says baavur zeh, it is only when the Pesach, Matza, and Maror are sitting before him.

So we need to mention the matzah and a Biblical significance to the matzah, as it relates to the Exodus.

Maror and its pasuk is curious. Of course maror is part of the baavur zeh, since the Pesach was eaten al matzos umerorim.

But there is no explicit pasuk telling why one eats maror. Indeed, some rationalist Rishonim, such as Ibn Caspi, view it as a health injunction, to have vegetables with one's meal. But there is a linguistic link between "they embittered their lives" and maror, and this is good enough. And so the pasuk cited is וימררו את חייהם.

Unless we take ומצות על מרורים יאכלוהו as meaning that one ate the matza, etc., upon, that is because of, the bitternesses.

Some thoughts on Rabban Gamliel

What is the reason for Rabban Gamliel's statement that anyone who does not say Pesach, Matzah and Maror on Pesach does not fulfill his obligation of (sipur)?

1) One can become engaged in the derashos of maggid and forget to say these three basic elements of the Passover story. This is a way of grounding people.

2) Earlier, when discussing the Chacham, I noted the different approaches as to what to do on the seder night. Rabban Gamliel and the Zekeinim in Lod spent the whole night talking about hilchos haPesach; this as opposed to Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon, who spend the whole night engaged in the story of Pesach.

Given the differing overarching focus in the opposite direction, it makes sense that Rabban Gamliel would establish a minimum level of sippur.

3) Besides all this, I believe that Rabban Gamliel in not establishing a minimum that others would actually necessarily agree to. Rather, he is imposing an additional requirement, based on derashot of pesukim. (Which pesukim, I'll present in a bit.) But conceivably, one could have been doreish all of Arami Oved Avi and started with gnay and ended with shvach without mentioning in particular the korban Pesach and its prompt, the matzah and its prompt, and the maror and its prompt.

Thus, we mention Pesach, meaning the korban Pesach. Because Hashem skipped over our ancestor's homes in Egypt. And a prooftext establishing that Hashem indeed skipped over the houses, and that this is the cause of it being called a Zevach Pesach.

But the prooftext, in this instance, does more that. I think it also establishes the chiyuv. The key word is the first one: ואמרתם. And you shall say that it is a zevach pesach...


Thus, in the very establishment of the chiyuv of sippur, in a response to a son's query, there is the requirement to say zevach pesach hu.

Ideally, this would be while standing in front of a korban you are bringing / eating. Thus, zevach pesach hu, as something you can point to. Maybe the chiyuv of sippur would fail when the korban Pesach fails. But it didn't, and Rabban Gamliel, who had his seder in Lod after the churban, still not only requires sippur but even mention of the Pesach.


On a peshat level, by the way, one might be able to argue that this is not a requirement of sippur. Rather, it was a promise, that things will be so good that the son will not even know the meaning of the sacrifice, because the Egyptian exile will pass so far from their minds in their living a life of cheirus.

כה  וְהָיָה כִּי-תָבֹאוּ אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן ה לָכֶם--כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֵּר; וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם, אֶת-הָעֲבֹדָה הַזֹּאת.	25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as He hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.
כו  וְהָיָה, כִּי-יֹאמְרוּ אֲלֵיכֶם בְּנֵיכֶם:  מָה הָעֲבֹדָה הַזֹּאת, לָכֶם.	26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you: What mean ye by this service?
כז  וַאֲמַרְתֶּם זֶבַח-פֶּסַח הוּא לַה', אֲשֶׁר פָּסַח עַל-בָּתֵּי בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִצְרַיִם, בְּנָגְפּוֹ אֶת-מִצְרַיִם, וְאֶת-בָּתֵּינוּ הִצִּיל; וַיִּקֹּד הָעָם, וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ.	27 that ye shall say: It is the sacrifice of the LORD'S passover, for that He passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when He smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses.' And the people bowed the head and worshipped.

That is why the people's reaction was so positive, that they bowed their head and worshipped. But that does not necessarily establish a chiyuv to engage in such sippur.

As opposed to matza zo and maror zeh, we don't say pesach zeh because it is not in front of us.

Next up is matza zo.

Some thoughts on Dayeinu

We've darshened from Arami Oved Avi. Now we turn to Dayeinu, which functions as a song, a praise for all Hashem did for us in the Exodus and after, and is indeed a micro sippur yetzias mitzrayim, in more or less chronological order. Also, the tova kefulah umechupeles fits in with the prior idea of multiplying the miracles.

It would have been enough to no longer be in servitude in Egypt, and that would be sufficient reason to praise Hashem. But that there is justice served, such that evildoers who hurt us do not simply get away with it, is an additional boon, and worthy of thanks and praise.

One famous and somewhat obvious question: how we can say that it would have been sufficient for us had He not split the sea for us? Wouldn't the Egyptians have annihilated us?

To answer this:

1) Who says the showdown at the Yam Suf had to happen? According to the Biblical narrative, the situation was orchestrated by Hashem, by directing the Hebrews to travel and encamp at a certain spot, in order to convince Pharaoh that they were confounded and that the wilderness had closed them in. All this so that Hashem could glorify himself with the Egyptian defeat. But had He just given us their money (presumably when each person asked this of his Egyptian neighbor, rather than the spoils of the Yam Suf, which is later), without having split the sea, it would have been sufficient.

2) It would have been sufficient does not mean that we would be happy with that state of affairs. Rather, this is an enumeration of all the good things Hashem had does. And at each point, Hashem's actions on our behalf is sufficient reason to give praise. This is explicit at the end of the song.

In terms of sustaining us in the wilderness for 40 years, even though we would have preferred to have entered Eretz Yisrael immediately, it was a miraculous and group thing to sustain a people in the wilderness for so long. (And the stay in the wilderness was arguably a formative experience for the Israelite people.)

Another famous question is: what point would there be in bringing them before Har Sinai and not giving them the Torah?

1) I would answer that this was a fulfillment of the sign that Hashem has sent Moshe, as mentioned in Shemot 3:

יב  וַיֹּאמֶר, כִּי-אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ, וְזֶה-לְּךָ הָאוֹת, כִּי אָנֹכִי שְׁלַחְתִּיךָ:  בְּהוֹצִיאֲךָ אֶת-הָעָם, מִמִּצְרַיִם, תַּעַבְדוּן אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים, עַל הָהָר הַזֶּה.

12 And He said: 'Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be the token unto thee, that I have sent thee: when thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.'

Further, what Moshe had asked Pharaoh for repeatedly was to take the Israelites out to serve Hashem. And this could be what happened at this mountain, Chorev / Har Sinai.

2) Alternatively, the revelation at Har Sinai was sufficiently a positive experience, even had the Torah (/10 commandments) not been the end result.

3) Alternatively, there were the luchos, and there was separately the entirety of the Torah.

Dayeinu extends until the entering Eretz Yisrael -- Neturei Karta can say that Dayeinu with good kavvanah -- and finally, the building of the bet hamikdash.

The recitation of Arami Oved Avi in the mikdash extended until the entering the land and bringing the presents before Hashem -- וַיְבִאֵנוּ אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה. And so too the optional fifth language of geulah, והבאתי, associated with the optional 5th cup. Could this be an artefact of a haggadah in which they darshened, with the Sifrei, the following pasuk?

The song continues.

The conclusion is that we should be extremely grateful.

What does this lengthy repetition accomplish? Well, stylistically, it makes for a nice conclusion of the song.

But there is also a difference in tone between the first part and the second. The first part worked it way slowly and deliberately forward. The focus was on each reason to be thankful, and so we come full stop at the end of each statement (that could have been) and exclaim Dayeinu! And then, before moving forward, we restate the new boon Hashem granted. Thus, we appreciate each great thing Hashem did individually.

In this second half, the progression is entirely forward. There is no pause for breath at a Dayeinu, and the contrast with the first part makes that clear to the singer. And there is no backwards movement, since their is no repetition of a favor Hashem granted. By juxtaposing all of the tovahs that Hashem did in this manner, we emphasize how much it is a tovah kefulah umchulpeles and how Hashem has been overwhelmingly good to us.

Some thoughts on calculating plagues

What follows are a bunch of calculations. Since the magicians called a single plague the finger of God, and at the Reed Sea there is reference to the great hand, we multiply by 5.

To what end? To praise Hashem for providing so many miracles, and so to demonstrate that there were so many miracles. Also, because כל המרבה לספר ביציאת מצרים הרי זה משובח, and this is a form of being marbeh.

Thus, a calculation of 10 and 10 x 5.

Don't spend too much time on these derashot. Say it in English, in summary, of how one derasha differs from the next and what the conclusion is.

Rabbi Eliezer brings a prooftext in which each plague in Egypt has four plagues, or four aspects:

Therefore, multiply by 4, for 40 in Egypt, and 200 at the Reed Sea.

Rabbi Akiva reanalyzes and reparses that same prooftext and yields a fifth aspect or fifth plague, such that we multiply by 5.

We should not look for deep meanings of these derashot, and figure why each said what he said. These derashot were said in chronological order, in the order given here. Had R' Akiva spoken second, then he would have given R' Eliezer's derasha.

Why? The point was Rabbinic creativity and one-upmanship in creating derashot to praise Hashem. And this was their avodah, perhaps even on the seder night.