Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 005

Wednesday, April 27 2005

• Chochom and the mitzva of the night
• dreams and schar veonesh
• The "hidden five" at the Seder.
• Re: Chochom and the mitzva of the night
• Re: dreams and schar veonesh
• Brocha on Tevila
• wife's customs
• Midrashim for kids
• Eliyahu haNavi
• darshening the fifth pasuk
• Re: Chochom and the mitzva of the night
• "obligation" to believe aggadata
• Re: dreams and schar veonesh
• Re: The "hidden five" at the Seder.
• Re: Chochom and the mitzva of the night
• The Geder of Mitzvas Charoses
• Re: Teaching Children Midrashim

It occurred to me during the Seder that the entire discussion with the
Wise Son seems to have no mention of Yetzias Mitzraim -- which is the
main mitzva of the evening.

Does this mean that one would fulfill the Mitzva of the night by merely
discussing the intricacies of the various Hilchos Pessach?
 Chidush or misunderstanding?

 - Danny

In the recent daf yomi Rava's wife (and children) died because of he
did not pay for the interpretation of his dream and so received a bad
interpretation which the Gemara states affects the future. Abaye OTOH
paid and so received a good interpretation.

Where does schar veonesh come into all of this. Presumably Rava's wife
(the daughter of R. Chisda) was not deserving of death. She seems to have
died only because of her husband's dream and subsequent interpretation.

I assume that on the previous Rosh hashana she was put in the book of
life and somehow this got changed by a dream.

kol tuv,
-- 
Eli Turkel

So, I'm walking to shul with my just-turned-12 yr old son, on the morning
after the first seder.

Sigh, it drives me nuts that when we walk to shul together on shabboses
and yom tov, all he wants to talk about are things like Star Wars,
Harry Potter, and the like.

But, this time, out of the blue, he tells me the following thought.
It blew me away. I bring it to the chevra here to ask if anyone has
heard of this before?
====================

At a superficial level, the seder is concerned with the number four
(4 questions, sons, cups of wine, and the 4 sayings in torah).

But really there is a hidden fifth to each of these. Rambam tells us
of a fifth question ("why on this night do we eat only roasted meat",
but bizman hazeh we don't ask it b/c we don't have the korban pesach);
the L Rebbe talks about the modern day fifth son (who is so assmilated
that he doesn't even show up to the seder); their is a fifth cup of wine
(kos Eliyahu); which (iirc) stems from the fifth saying of redemptionn
in the Torah.

This "hidden" fifth alludes to HaShem who is hidden from us. And,
when we realize the redemption, when we, next year, are in Yerushalyim,
when Moshiach comes, HaShem will be revealed -- as will the fifths in
the seder (the fifth question will be relevant again (if we still do
the korban pesach); the fifth son will be there; and the fifth cup/fifth
saying of redemption will have come to pass.

===================

Anyone ever hear anything like this?

 - Sholom

Danny Schoemann <doniels@gmail.com> wrote:
> It occurred to me during the Seder that the entire discussion with the
> Wise Son seems to have no mention of Yetzias Mitzraim -- which is the
> main mitzva of the evening.

The Arba Banim expresses the Chiuv of V'Higaditta L'Vincha.

> Does this mean that one would fulfill the Mitzva of the night by merely
> discussing the intricacies of the various Hilchos Pessach?

Absolutely ( ...at least according to Rabbi Y. Z. Soloveitchik).

HM

Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the recent daf yomi Rava's wife (and children) died because of he
> did not pay for the interpretation of his dream and so received a bad
> interpretation which the Gemara states affects the future. Abaye OTOH
> paid and so received a good interpretation.

> Where does schar veonesh come into all of this....
> I assume that on the previous Rosh hashana she was put in the book of
> life and somehow this got changed by a dream.

Why assume that? Maybe she deserved to die and was destined to die that
year... not being put in the book of life. The dream interpreter merely
interprted Rava's dream. That Rava didn't pay the intepreter causing him
to spin the dream negatively doesn't mean that she wouldn't have died
otherwise. Perhaps, had he been paid, the interpreter would have spun
the dream in a positive light and not included the information about
her death.

HM

I wrote (and I do seem to be having a conversation with myself now on 
this topic, so I hope others haven't lost interest)
>On tevila on erev yom kippur - the Shulchan Aruch poskens in Orech 
>Chaim, siman 606 si'if 4 that one does not make a brocha on the tevila 
>erev yom kippur.  Now the Tur's commentary on this is as follows (in 
>the same siman) states that Rav Sadiyah says that we do make a brocha 
>on the tevila on erev yom kippur, but the Rosh says that this does not 
>seem correct to him because we don't see in the talmud a hint to this 
>tevila or in the neviim .. and if it is because of what Rabbi Yitzchak 
>said (Rosh Hashana 16) that chayav adam l'taher etzmo b'regel, this is 
>to metaher himself from all tumah including tumas meis which requires 
>hazah etc and now there is no such tehora and since baalei keri  don't 
>toyvel themselves all the year there is no obligation for this tevila 
>and no brocha but rather there is a minhag the world over to metaher 
>oneself from keri on erev yom kippur.

>Now the Bach comments on this and answers the Rosh saying that there 
>really should be a bracha based no this obligation of Rabbi Yitzchak, 
>since this makes it into a mitzvah d'rabbanan, and we should make a 
>bracha on all mitzvahs d'rabanan.  And in response to the view of the 
>Rosh that we can only say we are following Rabbi Yitzchak's halacha if 
>we are able to be metaher from all kinds of tumah, and since this is 
>impossible today, then we can't be said to be performing this mitzvah, 
>the Bach argues and says that even so, for each tahara and tahara that 
>we are able to perform, we ought to be able to say a bracha.  But he 
>concludes that since there is a maklokus haposkim, that makes it a 
>bracha m'safek and so we don't make it, and that this is the custom.

>But what would seem clear from this discussion is that nobody holds 
>that, absent a regel, there is any question of a stam mitzvah to toyvel 
>purely to be metaher oneself, even if one were able to be fully metaher 
>oneself (including of tumas meis).  And since we cannot be fully 
>metaher oneself, even before a regel there is no brocha - at least in 
>the case of a man.

Now, as is so often the case, while looking for something else I fell
over a teshuva in Minchas Shlomo that would seem to suggest the contrary.
The teshuva (in chelek 2, siman 53) is actually entitled B'inyan bracha al
haminhag v'hahidur, uv'lav d'lo tasur and the portion I am referring to
(si'if 2 of that siman) seems primarily to be about making a brocha on
lighting Channuka candles in shul. But in passing in the fourth paragraph
there he states "that we find by women that they make a bracha on tevila
which is m'chumra u'misafek v'ano m'ikur hadin, and this is because they
have accepted on themselves the obligation of tevila also m'tzad hachumra
and hence they make the bracha. And if so, it is hard to reconcile this
with the position of the mechaber that one does not make a bracha even
on mitzvos which have been accepted upon themselves like mitzvos aseh
shehazman grama so how are they able to make a bracha on this tevila.
And it is possible to say that this is because, in any case, this tevila
will effect for them for the matter that they will be tahor from the tumah
of poletes shifchas zera, and they will therefore be permitted to enter
into the har habayis if they wish, and therefore it is proper [is that
the way to translate shapir?] that they are able to make a bracha even
though they do not intend for this, and do not want to be taher from
their tumah. And even though we find (in Chagigah 18) one who tovels
for chullin is still ossur for ma'aseh, and one who is established for
ma'aseh is still ossur for trumah and one who is established for trumah
is still ossur for kodesh and it is clear that you need kavana for kodesh
and bias mikdash, in any case it seems that this is only on bias mikdash,
but not on entering into har habayis because m'ikar hadin also a tamei
meis, or even a meis itself is permitted to enter into har habayis and
it is not forbidden except for one whose tumah emanates from his body
like a baal keri or the like and because of this it is not appropriate
to say that all of the chumras and levels that are said regarding kodesh
and bias mikdash they said also with regard to the matter of entering
the har habayis and therefore it is proper that they are able to bless
even though they do not have the intention for this."

End of discussion of tevila, commencement of discussion about blessing
over eruv tavshilin.

Now this passage strikes me as exceedingly strange, and I confess I do not
understand it. First of all, what chumros are being referred to that it is
common for women to toyvel for? It would seem from this description that
these may even go wider than minhag (although maybe not, if the idea is
of accepting upon themselves the obligation to toyvel with the chumros) -
but most women accept upon themselves the obligation to tovel because they
believe this is a mitzvah d'orisa. If in fact they are adding chumras,
they still tend to believe that in fact they are toyvelling due to the
mitzvah d'orisa. So what is being discussed here seems very puzzling.

Secondly, it seems that the minhagim and chumros being discussed cannot
in any way be described as being linked to nida or ziva - because of the
shifchas zera reference, so it would seem, in order for the equation to
work, that there must have been some relations - does this permission
to make these brochas not apply if in fact there had been no relations
that month? Or is the assumption that that will never happen?

(It does however seem that whatever these minhagim and chumros are,
it is assumed brochas are being made over them by sfardios as well,
otherwise the reference to the shita of the mechaber and the mitzvos
aseh shehazman grama does not make sense.)

Thirdly, this paragraph appears to ignore the discussion I brought in
my earlier post (quoted above) regarding making a brocha on tevila erev
yom kippur, which is about as established a minhag as one can get, I
would have said, given that it is brought in the Shulchan Aruch itself.
And this tevila would surely make the man tahor from keri allowing
entry to har habayis just as much as the tevilos discussed (more likely,
actually, I would have thought to effect a change, given that in most
cases the man has not been to mikvah from one year to the next, while
the woman is likely to have been the previous month). And yet nobody
seems to suggest that as a snif to allow a brocha by the man, arguing
only in the question as to whether the mitzvah of being metaher oneself
for a regel does or does not apply.

Anybody have any idea what these minhagim and chumros that are being
referred to here are?

Moed tov
Chana
 -- 
Chana Luntz

returning to an old discussion. I just saw in the recent "Hagada of RSZA"
that he claimed that the usual custom was for the husband to be mochel
on his customs and so the wife usually would continue davening in her
old family's nusach.

 -- 
Eli Turkel

There was some discussion here recently on how kids today seem to be
taught according to the "all midrashim are literal history" method.
At least I would say that such works as "The Little Midrash Says" seem
to focus on telling over a mass of stories without enough indication on
how to use them. (To be fair, I think series such as this have some very
positive points as well. I used "The Midrash Says" extensively when I
was teaching Hebrew School.)

I was presented with a practical case over Yom Tov that I wanted to
submit to the chevra as a test case for how to deal with these issues.
I was asked by a child (about 11 years old) whether, when the sea split,
the fish were frozed or were swimming around. My initial reaction was,
"what difference does it make," an answer that was apparently so alien
to the child that she didn't even register it.

It seems to me that this question stems from not only a literalist
reading, but a sort of "wonder story" approach. When I ask mai nafkah
minah I don't mean to belittle the question, rather it reflects my
conviction that midrashim, whether literal or allegorical, convey some
basic truth. This works in both directions: if I don't see what the
answer to the question would teach, then I fail to see the importance of
the question; conversely, if I could see the implication of the answer,
it might provide some hints as to how to figure out the answer (barring
a specific mekor).

Any comments on how others would answer this question?

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
<israel@email.arizona.edu>
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical
   Engineering

It is commonly believed that Eliyahu will or can come Seder night to be
Mevaser the Geulah (See Hok Yaakov to OH 480).  In many circles
(particularly - though not exclusively - Hasidic circles) there is a belief
that Eliyahu visit every home seder night just as he comes to every Brit.
Eliyahu is greeted with Barukh HaBa.

However, the Gemara in Eruvin 43b makes it clear that, according to the
view that there are Techumin above 10,  Eliyahu cannot come on Shabbat or
Yom Tov.  The Gemara does not come to a clear ruling on this matter and
Le-halakha it is a safek.  Are we forced to say that  this tradition that
Eliyahu will/does or at least can come Seder night is only according to the
view that there aren't  Techumin above 10.

See Turei Even on R"H 11a s.v. "Be-Tishrei". He deals with this gemara -
but he is focussed on the coming of Ben David (Mashiach).  My reading of the
Turei Even is that indeed Ben David or Eliyahu will come some time in Nissan
but not Seder night. See also Mishnah Berurah, 480, no. 10 - That Kos
Eliyahu indicates that we believe he will come - but he is noncommital
regarding necessarily Seder night.

Has anyone seen any discussion of this point?
        Hag Sameach
                Aryeh

--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail: FrimeA@mail.biu.ac.il

R. David Tzfi Hoffman suggested that this was the case originally---see
Shu't Melamed leHoil 3:65.

This may be part of a shadow set of fives that are related to Eretz
Yisrael that complement the more standard fours of the haggadah:

1. ve-heveysi

2. the fifth kos

3.) the fifth question of basar tzli (although historically there were
probably never five questions, nevertheless the Jewish experience of
Pesach has known five questions)

4.) the fifth son who asks about kenisah le-aretz (yehoshua 4:21)

A guttn moed,
Rabbi Daniel Yolkut
Cong. Keneseth Beth Israel
www.kbi6300.org <http://www.kbi6300.org/> 

[RHM:]
> Danny Schoemann <doniels@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It occurred to me during the Seder that the entire discussion with the
>> Wise Son seems to have no mention of Yetzias Mitzraim -- which is the
>> main mitzva of the evening.

> The Arba Banim expresses the Chiuv of V'Higaditta L'Vincha.

>> Does this mean that one would fulfill the Mitzva of the night by merely
>> discussing the intricacies of the various Hilchos Pessach?

> Absolutely ( ...at least according to Rabbi Y. Z. Soloveitchik).

I contribute the Midrash and Method on Pesach which relates to this theme.

Remembering the Exodus.

The first night of Passover is unique among Jewish festivals in that
it is associated with a prescribed text, the Haggadah. This particular
feature warrants a closer exploration.

We generally think of remembering Exodus as telling the story of what
happened on that night. A number of sources, however, imply that Torah
study is a primary component of this obligation or that it can substitute
for the Haggadah.

Two scholars who know the laws of Pesach are still obligated to discuss
the laws of Pesach on that night (Pesachim 116a). A person is required
to be engaged in the study of the laws of Passover the entire night
(Tosefta, Pesachim 10:5).

This focus on laws is not always fully appreciated.

If he is a wise son, what does he say: "What are these testimonies,
statutes, and rules that G-d has commanded you? Also you reply to
him according to the laws of Passover, "We do not eat after afikomen"
(Haggada).

The Tur comments: " For a person is obligated to occupy himself the
entire night with the laws of Passover and to recount the miracles and
wondersג€¦until sleep overtakes him (O'C 481).

What about the laws versus reciting a text? Is our model at Seder the
commandment to remember Amalek, wherein we read a specified story text,
or is it the commandment to remember what Hashem did to Miriam -"that
you shall study it (Ra'avad - the laws of tsaraas) with your mouth"
(Sifra Bechukosai 2)?

We have in the past discussed the fact that remembering something may
be done through simple awareness (not forgetting), review (study of
laws), recall (performance of an associated action), and commemoration
(a recitation of a text). In fact, Sifra in Bechukosia appears to list
examples of 3 of these kinds of remembering:

1. Awareness - not forgetting one's learning
2. Review - remembering Miriam by studying the laws of tsaraas.
3. Commemoration - Reading the portion of Amalek.

What about the Seder - what kind of remembering is it?

Well, it seems that several kinds of remembering come together at the
Seder table. We have recall, by eating matza and korban pesach (see Rashi
on Devarim 16:3). We have review - this is study of Passover laws. We
finally have commemoration - the recitation of the Haggadah text during
the Seder.

Is there also a component of awareness regarding in the mitzvah of
remembering the Exodus?

The Yefeh To'ar discussing Brochos 12b appears to understand that the
commandment to remember the Exodus from Egypt is merely to remember
it in our hearts and not to say it out loud. All other observances are
Rabbinic enactments so as to ensure the performance of the basic Biblical
obligation. If so, it would seem that Biblically there is merely the
obligation to be aware and nothing more[1].

This approach allows us to answer the well known question of why the
Rambam does not count the obligation to remember Exodus on Pesach night
as one of 613 mitvos; he only counts the every day obligation to remember
the Exodus. It would seem that the obligation to inwardly to remember the
Exodus can be triggered by any means of remembrance - recall, review or
commemoration; however, the essence and nature of the obligation is the
same on Pesach night as it is the rest of the year. Consequently once
it is counted once in Sefer Hamitzvos, it cannot be counted another time.

M. Levin

[1] Thanks to R. Gil Student for this reference. For a recent discussion
on a related theme see his hirhurimblogspot.com.

I heard the following story from R' Michel Shurkin, concerning this topic:

When R' Shurkin was learning by the Rav(RYBS), he had an argument with a
prominent talmid of the rav and YU rosh yeshiva (whom r' Shurkin did not
want to to divulge the identity of). The argument came down to this point,
whether that talmid was a kofer for arguing with an aggadata gemora. R'
Shurkin called RYBS who said the person in question certainly was a
kofer, because the Ramabam in Teshuva 3:17 lists as a kofer one who is
"machchish magideha." Ad kan.

MikeW

Eli Turkel <> wrote:
> In the recent daf yomi Rava's wife (and children) died because of he
> did not pay for the interpretation of his dream and so received a bad
> interpretation which the Gemara states affects the future. Abaye OTOH
> paid and so received a good interpretation.

> Where does schar veonesh come into all of this....
> I assume that on the previous Rosh hashana she was put in the book of
> life and somehow this got changed by a dream.

Posted by: hmaryles@yahoo.com Posted on: Apr 26, 2005, 9:09 PM
> Why assume that? Maybe she deserved to die and was destined to die that
> year... not being put in the book of life. The dream interpreter merely
> interprted Rava's dream. That Rava didn't pay the intepreter causing him
> to spin the dream negatively doesn't mean that she wouldn't have died
> otherwise. Perhaps, had he been paid, the interpreter would have spun
> the dream in a positive light and not included the information about
> her death.

OMO, there are three views intermixed up in the gemoro's
discussion. These may correlate to the views held by the same
indivduals on the question of mazal and its influence on individual's
fate.Certain amoraim seem to express views that straddle several of
these positions. f.e. R. Yochanan.There is not perfect correlation to
views expressed by the same individuals on Shabbos 156 but there is some
correlation. I also note that the sugya gets into the question of dreams
via discussion of tehe ffect of ain harah to which a similar objection to
the one abovecan be offered as well. This suggests a connedtion between
two questions.

1. Those who hold that dreams are merely reflections of what a person
thought about during the day - Rabba Bar Shmuel, Rava before the story
with Bar Hedya (after which he seems to ahve changed his mind twice,
once to view 2 and then to view 3,a s arises form tracing his opinions
through the sugya), and the stories on top of daf 66a. 2. All dreams
follow interpetation - Stories of Bar Hedya and most of daf 66a.

3. The rest of Amoraim who ascribe specific interpretations to specific
dreams ( The exact rules of how one derives interpretations need to be
worked out; I know that there are works on this but have not read any of
them. Perhaps those who have, can help us out. One such work that refers
to others is Betsalel Naor's Bringing Down Dreams Exploring the Lost Art
Jewish of Jewish Dream Interpretation at http://www.orot.com/dreams.html )

In summary, at least 3 opinions about dreams are expressed in the
sugya. Detailed correlations need to be worked out. If we tease them
out it may turn out that the issue of disagreement is the saem one as
effect of stars or magic or evil eye and the question of how fair it is
that these things have an infulence reduces to the matter of disagreement.

M. Levin

Sholom Simon <sholom@aishdas.org> wrote:
> At a superficial level, the seder is concerned with the number four
> (4 questions, sons, cups of wine, and the 4 sayings in torah).

> But really there is a hidden fifth to each of these. Rambam tells us
> of a fifth question ("why on this night do we eat only roasted meat",
> but bizman hazeh we don't ask it b/c we don't have the korban
> pesach);

The Mishneh in Pesachim (116) states the fourth Kasha is the question
about eating Basar Tzli (the Korban Pesach) but as you point out, there
is no Korban Pesach today. But it isn't a fifth question, according to the
Gemarah, IIRC. It was the original fourth question. It has been replaced
by the question about Heseibah (reclining). The reason that question
wasn't asked in the time of the Mishneh is that people ate like this
all the time. So there was no "on all other nights". All other nights
people reclined when they ate. But by the time the BM was destroyed,
people ate both ways, so at that time the question made sense.

> the L Rebbe talks about the modern day fifth son (who is so assmilated
> that he doesn't even show up to the seder); 

WADR to the L Rebbe, he was consumed with Kiruv almost all of his life
and his many successes in that field give testement to his legacy. But
I do not know of any sources that speak of a fifth son. There is no
mention anywhere that I am aware of that says there was ever a fifth
son written about by the author of the Haggadah.

> their is a fifth cup of wine
> (kos Eliyahu); which (iirc) stems from the fifth saying of redemptionn
> in the Torah.

The following explanation of the Kos Shel Eliyahu is in large measure
taken from Torah LaDaas.

The Eliyahu story is nice folklore and indeed we call it the Kos Shel
Eliyahu. The Maharal MiPrag says that it is called that because the
fifth Kos is an expression of the redemption which Eliyahu will herald
just prior to Yimos HaMoshiach. But in fact he does not really come.

The fifth cup is sourced in Pesachim(118B) and is based on a fifth
Lashon of Geula: V'Heveisi. It is a Machlokes as to whether there
should be four or five cups. The cups are representations of the four
terms of Geulah used by the Torah: V' HoTzeisi, V'Hitzalti, V'Goalti,
and V'Lakachti. (Interestingly the Yerushlmi mentions 2 additional
reasons for the four Lishonos: 1) they are representaive of the
four Malchios that Yisrael served, 2) the four times the word Kos is
mentioned by Yosef HaTzadik in Torah's narrative of the dream of the Sar
HaMashkin.) Ultimately, though, the fifth Lashon is not one of Geula but
one of "post" Geula that happens later, and it is therefore not included
amongst the Lashonos of Geula.

Never-the-less, there are some who are Noheg to drink a fifth cup of
wine during the Hallel Hagadol (Hodu LaShem Ki Tov, Ki L'Olam Chasdo,
etc.)portion of the Seder. In a Braisa, this is in fact what R.
Tarfon says that we should do. The Remez as I said above, is from the
"fifth" Lashon of Geula: V'Haveisi (Eschem LaAretz). The Daas Z'Keinim
mentions that we do this in order to satisfy that opinion that this is a
"fifth Lashon of Geulah. The rationale is that without V'Heveisi, there
would be no point to the first four Lashonos. Without Eretz Yisroel we
would have no place to be and there would in effect be no real point to
the Geulah.

Rabeinu Saadia Gaon was Noheg to drink a fifth cup and considered it
a Mitzvah. The Rambam (and the Rif) in fact says that Hallel HaGadol
should be said on the fifth Kos although it is not a required Mitzvah
like the first four Kosos, but merely a Reshus. The Hasagos HaRaavad
on the Baal HaMeor points out that when Tanna Kamma says we should not
diminsish from the four Kosos, he does not say we can't add to them and
therefore for those who do so, Harei Zeh Meshubach.

The Rokeach also Paskins that we should say Halel HaGadol on the fifth
Kos. The Tur however says that we do not say Hallel HaGadol on a fifth
Kos but on the fourth Kos... The Shulchan Aruch Paskins that way and
that is our Minhag today.

The Rama points out that l'Halacha we are forbidden to drink more than
four Kosos because it looks like we are Mosef Al Hakosos (Bal Tosef)
except under certain limited conditions. The Chok Yaakov on SA points
out what our Minahg is. We pour a fifth Kos and we call it the Kos Shel
Eliyahu. Rav Yaakov Emden (The Yaavetz) says that we are Noheg to use
a large cup.

HM

mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
> The first night of Passover is unique among Jewish festivals in
> that it is associated with a prescribed text, the Haggadah. This
> particular feature warrants a closer exploration.

> We generally think of remembering Exodus as telling the story of
> what happened on that night. A number of sources, however, imply
> that Torah study is a primary component of this obligation or that
> it can substitute for the Haggadah. 

The question may be asked, "If the Chiuv of Sipur Yitzias Mitrayim is
extant at most, only until the end of the night, then what is the
point of going on past the night until Zman Kriyas Shema the which is
much past night and well into the morning ...as did the Chachamim in
Bnei Brak?  Why did the Talmidim of those Chachamim need to stop them
to remind them about Kriyas Shema Shel Shachris?

R. Velvel answers that it is possible to say that they were being
Mekayem the Mitzva of Sipur Yitzias Mitzrayim through the Limud of
Hilchos Peasch and extended their learning B'Toras Limud HaTorah. The
Talmidim then came to inform them that Zman Kriyas Shema arrived and
one must stop his learning Torah in order to say Kriays Shema
B'Zmano.

HM

RYGB wrote:
> V'asher al kein yeira'eh lomar that the Rambam does rule, in fact, in
> accordance with Chachamim. The Rambam - both in the Peirush HaMishnayos
> and the Yad - is consistent in this respect. His position is that this,
> in and of itself, was the machlokes between REBRT and the Chachamim
> - whether the mitzvah of charoses is a mitzvas achilah or a mitzvas
> hava'ah. The nafka mina is, of course, whether there is a berachah on
> the charoses or not: If the mitzvah is one of achilah, then of course it
> follows that it should have its own berachah. But if it is a mitzvah of
> hava'ah, it is no different than the other mitzvos hava'ah of the Seder -
> viz., the zero'a and beitzah - upon which no berachah is made....

I have a few problems with your Peshat as opposed to RYBS. First of all,
the Mishneh on Pesachim 114a says according to T"K that you bring to the
table Charoses among other things although it's not a Mitzvah. The Gemara
116a asks that if it's not a Mitzvah why bring it? The Gemara answers
to counteract the harmful Kafa (poison?) in the Marror. Then the Gemara
discusses The opinion of REBRT who holds it's a Mitzvah & the reasons why
it's a Mitzvah. If the T"K also held that it was a Mitzvah to bring to the
table for the reasons of commemorating the mortar or apple, why didn't
the Gemara give that answer for why we bring it to the table? Secondly
I don't think it really answers the question of why the Rambam reqires
all the dippings in Charoses. Just because they are all Zecher to Avdus
does not necessarily mean that they all require any dipping at all. The
Gemara says according to the T"K that we dip it because of the "kafa"
of the Morror which does not apply to the Karpas & Matzah. In addition,
how does Rambam & R' Yechiel know that Karpas is Zecher to Avdus?

Kol Tuv,
Moshe Schor

israel@email.arizona.edu posted on: Apr 26, 2005:
> There was some discussion here recently on how kids today seem to be
> taught according to the "all midrashim are literal history" method...
> I was presented with a practical case ...
> I was asked by a child (about 11 years old) whether, when the sea split,
> the fish were frozed or were swimming around....
> It seems to me that this question stems from not only a literalist
> reading, but a sort of "wonder story" approach. ...[I]t reflects my
> conviction that midrashim, whether literal or allegorical, convey some
> basic truth.

Am I missing something? Krias (or Bekias) Yam Suf is not a Midrash,
but stated clearly in the Torah, and clearly accepted as literal—and
importantly so—by all meforshim. The freezing of the waters (rather than
Cecil B. Demille's reverse Niagra Falls) is how some meforshim explain
the p'shat (RHM would love this) of how the waters stood up as walls,
the floor of the sea became hard, etc.: The blowing wind blew apart and
then froze solid the walls and previously muddy ground. And then when the
Pillar of Fire approached before the Egyptians, it melted everything,
made the chariot wheels stick in the mud, and the iced waters return
upon the Egyptians.

Did the fish freeze? I agree it seems irrelevant, but it's a valid
question.

Zvi Lampel

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]