Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 006

Thursday, April 28 2005

• Re: Chochom and the mitzva of the night
• Re: chacham
• MATZAH IS MATZAH
• Re: charoses
• Re: Chochom and the mitzva of the night
• Re: Chochom and the mitzva of the night
• Kos shel Eliyahu
• Re: Eliyahu haNavi
• Re: Eliyahu HaNavi
• eliyahu
• Re:
• Re: dreams and schar veonesh
• Re: dreams and schar veonesh
• recent daf yomi
• re: wife's customs
• Re: Midrashim for kids
• Re: Teaching Children Midrashim
• Re: chochom and the mitzva of the night
• Chochom and the mitzva of the night

> 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?

According to Rav Hutner (Pachad Yitzhak, Pesach 40:8), any spiritual
ramification of a miracle is a part of that same miracle (this is the
conclusion of a much longer piece). Therefore, the halakhos that arose
from Yetzias Mitzrayim are, by definition, part of the Yetzias Mitzrayim
process, and one can fulfill his requirement to discuss the miracles
of that night by discussing the halakhos that the events of that night
generated.

He uses this point to explain why, according to some Monei haMitzvos,
the mitzvah of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim will endure eternally, while
the mitzvah of Zekher Yetzias Mitzrayim will cease once Moshiach comes.
The latter relates to our national memory of the events of that time, and
will be superceded by the much greater events of the final redemption.
The former, though, flows from the Yetziah itself and includes the
actual events and everything that they generated, and therefore cannot
be superceded.

Mo'adim leSimcha,
Avraham Bronstein
avraham@thebronsteins.com
http://www.thebronsteins.com

>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?

definitely a mis reading-- veaf-- and also-- besides the torah's answer
of avadim hayinu tell him all the mishnas of pesachim up to (so the
nusach in the rambam) and including-- ein maftirin etc etc.-- after the
inyan of yetsias mitzraim and some shevach then tell him the laws.
he asked about laws and their reasons-- so give him the torah's answer
plus the torah shebal peh.

 -Zvi

Today I visited a congregant in his office and on his desk was a box of
matzah. He proudly lifted up the box and waved it in front of me proudly
declaring "See I even bought Matzah for my office!" Placing it in my
hand I couldn't help but see in small letters: "Not for Passover Use."
I gently explained to him that this Matzah was not Kosher for Pesah and
why that was. He quickly retorted: "Matzah is matzah. You guys make a
big thing out of nothing."

It is true. On Passover we make a big deal about chametz, but in
reality, the Rabbis saw that there was only the tiniest difference
between 'chametz' and 'matzah.' The Rabbis notice that 'chametz' and
'matzah' have almost the same letters. They both have 'mem' and 'tzadi'
and the third letter is either 'chet' or 'hey'- in Hebrew, two almost
identical letters. In fact, it is so easy to accidentally turn a 'hey'
into a 'chet.' Just the tiniest slip of your pen, and the gap of the
'hey' is closed, and the letter 'chet' is formed. Matzah can in fact
only be made from the exact grains that can become chametz. Baked in
under 18 minutes it's matzah, one minute more and it's chametz.

So in a sense my friend was partially correct. We do make a 'big thing'-
but NOT out of nothing. It is definitely out of SOMETHING-and 'something'
quite essential. The gematria of 'matzah' is 135. The same gematria can
apply to "ha-ayin" (the eye) and "Kahal" (congregation). How apropos!
Matzah is "the eye" of Pesah. With it we 'see' the meaning. And without
our 'kahal' or congregation we cannot survive.

The gematria of 'chametz' is 138. The same gematria can apply to
"lachm'khem" (your bread) and "hanegef" (the plague). Again, how
apropos! Chametz ordinarily is "your bread." However, if chametz is
consumed during Pesah it becomes "the plague."

So matzah is matzah, eh?

>Secondly I don't think it really answers the question of why the Rambam reqires
>all the dippings in Charoses

Look at the yotsros for shabbos hagadol-- he mentions dipping karpos in
charoses too but its not from the rambam. It was written by tov elem
(i.e. translates Bonfils from French)-- a late baal tosfos.

Zvi Basser

Danny Schoemann <doniels@gmail.com>
> 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?

The answers the baal hahagadah gives to the Chacham and Rasha must be
in addition to the answers the pasuk says to give them - "avadim hayinu"
and "zevach pesach hu" respectively. I mean, the baal hagadah can't be
contradicting the pasuk, he must merely be adding to it. So when the
Chacham asks about all the halachic details that he's observing, you have
to start by telling him *why* you're doing all this, as the pasuk says
"avadim hayinu", but then you can actually answer his question too.

So no, this piece does not prove that one can be yotze mitzvat hagadah
by discussing the laws of Pesach.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> 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

Er, she'elat tam: since when is this talking about *sof* zeman kriat
shma?  Bepashtut it's talking about *techilat* ZKSh - as it says
"*higia* ZKSh" - and the students came in to tell them that the time
for hagadah was over, because it was already getting light out, and
it was time to say KSh instead.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Apropos the discussion of the fifth kos, RSZA writes that the name "kos
shel Eliyahu" does not mean it is intended in some way for Eliyahu Hanavi.
Rather, it means that this fifth cup is of questionable obligation,
and the question will only be resolved when he comes -- hence the name
"kos shel Eliyahu."

EMT

In Avodah V15 #5 dated 4/27/2005 "Prof. Aryeh Frimer"
<frimea@mail.biu.ac.il> writes:
> It is commonly believed that Eliyahu will or can come Seder night
> to be Mevaser the Geulah .... 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.

R' Sholom Simon writes:
>  there is a fifth cup of wine
> (kos Eliyahu); which (iirc) stems from  the fifth saying of redemptionn
> in the Torah.

RHM writes:
> .... It is a Machlokes as to whether there
> should be four or  five cups. ....Rabeinu Saadia Gaon was Noheg to drink a 
> fifth cup and  considered it a Mitzvah. ....
> 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)

I heard this somewhere: Since we don't know for sure whether we are
supposed to drink four or five cups of wine, we drink four, but pour a
fifth, and call it "Kos Shel Eliyahu" because "Tishbi yavo v'yetaretz
kushios" -- Eliyahu Hanavi will tell us whether to drink four or
five cups.

Actually, another reason to have a fifth cup (which RHM and RSS
mentioned) is that there is a fifth loshon of geulah--"veheiveisi"--but
a reason not to drink that fifth cup is that that last loshon of geulah
has not been fulfilled, but will be fulfilled when Moshiach comes.

So I suppose at that point, we will all drink five cups, and Eliyahu
Hanavi will only tell us lemafreyah whether we SHOULD have been drinking
five cups all along.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

"Prof. Aryeh Frimer" <frimea@mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
> 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.

There's a gemara (I don't remember where) that implies that when Eliyahu
comes in a body he can only be in one place at a time, but when he comes
in spirit he can be in many places at once. When he comes to testify
to the Sanhedrin that Mashiach is coming, he'll have to be in a body,
which means that if "yesh techumin lemaalah me'asara" then he can't come
on Shabbos or Yomtov. But he visits britot and sedarim only in spirit
(which allows him to visit all the sedarim in the world on the same
night), so the techumin question doesn't apply.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

> 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.

I saw a peirush that the cup is called "cos eliyahu" because he will
pasken whether we drink 4 or 5 cups of wine not because he comes to visit
as there is indeed nothing special about his visiting on seder night.

Moadim Lesimchah
Eli Turkel

>> 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.
...

> 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.

Rava calls bar Hedya a rasha and certainly implies that his wife died only
because of the dreams as he would forgive everything except fot that.
If she was destined to die anyway then bar hedya is merely a messenger.

My question was specifically related to schat ve-onesh of someome else
and not to dreams in general. The shitot that Levin brings can answer
why one's dream can possibly affect himslef. What I don't understand
is how any shitah can say that a dream can affect someone else - and
cause death to Rava's wife

Chag Kasher Vesameach

-- 
Eli Turkel

In Avodah V15 #5 dated 4/27/2005 Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com>
writes:
> 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.

Your assumption that Rava's wife was written in the Book of Life on
Rosh Hashana but died anyway because of her husband's sin is probably
not correct.

See P' Mishpatim, Shmos 21:13 and Rashi there. The pasuk is about
someone who kills another person accidentally. He did not plan to
kill that person, but something happened, "vehaElokim inah leyado."
Hashem MADE it happen that this supposedly innocent person should kill
another supposedly innocent person.

Why would Hashem make such a thing happen? Rashi says that the person
who got killed had previously committed a murder, but there were no
witnesses. He deserved the death penalty but had never been punished
(either because no one found out he was the culprit or because in the
absence of witnesses, the Beis Din was powerless to act).

The person who caused the "accidental" death had previously been guilty
of an accidental killing for which he was supposed to go into galus,
i.e., to an ir miklat, but he, too, had escaped the consequences of
his deed for lack of witnesses. But this time there are witnesses,
so off he goes to exile.

No computer could possibly program a scenario with so many variables,
but Hashgacha Pratis can. Rava's wife probably WAS destined to die
that year, AND Rava himself deserved to be widowed.

My husband once gave a Rosh Hashana drasha in which he said that you
should do good to as wide a network of different people as possible,
because if one person who is dependent on your chessed or generosity
does not deserve to be written in the book of grief or loss that year,
he can save his benefactor from death that year. Meanwhile with another
year of life you can maybe do teshuva and escape punishment altogether,
or at least live to 120.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

In a message dated 4/28/2005 8:33:28am EDT,  eliturkel@gmail.com writes:
> Rava says that he forgives Ben Hadya for everything except for the
> death of his wife. The implication is that if Bar Hedya had changed
> the interpretation of the dream she would not have died.

Correct. If ANYTHING had been different, she would not have died. The
interpretation of the dream, Rava's deeds, his wife's deeds, anything.
It all had to come together "just so" for her to die when she did.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

some other remarks/comments on recent daf yomi at the end of Berachot.

1. Parts of the beracha of haMapil were inserted into the gemara based
on the seder of R. Amram Gaon. Hence, this is a very late interpolation
and affects our berachot!

2. Alei Shor states that based on this gemara that the ideal ruler for
the gentiles is an absolute monarch and that democracy is not the ideal
but occurs because of the lack of emunah of the present day nations
(he stresses he is talking about ideals and not individual kings who
may be reshaim). A truly believing nation would choose a system of
governership that emulates G-d. Once belief in G-d is lost one can
settle for a democracy (as an aside he mentions that the new concept of
a government in exile is an emulkation of G-d being in exile).

I have trouble accepting this - can someone please explain it better.

3. The calculations of Birchat haChamah are based on the calculations
of Shmuel (year=365 1/4 days) which are known to be off and be less
accurate than R. Ada. RMF says this does not change the halachah but
there is a mitzvah of talmud Torah to try and answer the question.

CI claims that both calculations including the "wrong" one are from
Sinai. He brings a sefer "Itim Lebinah" that says that Shmuel learned
his calculations from the nonJewish astronomers. CI responds that this
is minut. The author of the sefer is a religious Jew and so this is
"minut be-shogeg".

As we have discussed many times numerous geonim and rishonim claim that
the science of the gemara is based on roman/babylonian science. Is CI
claiming that all these geonim/rishonim are advocating minut be-shogeg?

4. Since the gemara works out a very specific moment for the creation
of the sun it appears not to accept the concept that the six days of
creation are not actual days but eons.

moadim le-simchah
Eli Turkel
-- 
Eli Turkel

[Speaking of Alei Shor, RSW was niftar on the 2nd day of chol hamo'ed
(E"Y). TNTzBH. -mi]

R' Eli Turkel: 
>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.

I was just talking with an old Hungarian yid (from the city of Liska)
who is a distant cousin, and he said (IIRC) regarding my great-grandfather
(R' Moshe Yehuda Gluck) that in those days it was common for the husband
to move in with his wife's family, and he would take his father-in-law's
customs.

KT and GYT,
MYG

Daniel Israel <israel@email.arizona.edu>
> 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.

Of course it's an alien question.  It may not make much difference to
you, but it must have made a big difference to the fish.  And it's small
wonder that a kid would be interested in the fish.  (The kids were also
the ones who fed the birds, while the adults were probably asking "what
difference does it make that are birds, and fruit to feed them? What
lesson will the baal hamidrash 1500 years from now be trying to teach
future generations by telling them about this?")

> It seems to me that this question stems from not only a literalist
> reading, but a sort of "wonder story" approach.

Er, kriy'at yam suf is not a midrash, that can be taken allegorically.
It pretty much *has* to be taken literally, which makes the fish question
legitimate.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Quoting hlampel@thejnet.com:
> 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 asked by a child (about 11 years old) whether, when the sea split,
>> the fish were frozed or were swimming around....

> 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.

Yes, you are definitely missing something.  Obviously krias Yam Suf is not a
midrash, but there are many, many midrashim about it.  Often when this episode
is taught to children a mass of these midrashim are presented without any
explanation (e.g. there were 12 lanes, all the water in the world 
split, etc.).

> 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.

But I think this explanation is all based in midrashim.

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

Umm, my point was that it can't be both. (I mean it is valid in the
sense of it has an actual answer, but it may be of no significance to
us and we may have no way of answering it.)

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

A shiur that touches on these issues from R. Y. Kahn:

                  Remembering and Recounting the Exodus:
                  Opposite Perspectives on a Common Theme
                             By Rav Yair Kahn
                      Translated by David Silverberg

The  Almighty  designated  two  mitzvot for recalling the Exodus: "zekhirat
yetzi'at   Mitzrayim"  -  REMEMBERING  the  Exodus,  and  "sippur  yetzi'at
Mitzrayim"  -  TELLING  about  the  Exodus.  This  article will explore the
relationship between these two mitzvot.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO MITZVOT

            "Rabbi  Elazar  Ben  Azarya  said: I am like a seventy-year-old
            man,  yet I have not had the privilege of mentioning the Exodus
            at  night,  until the exposition of Ben Zoma, that it says, 'In
            order  that you remember the day you left Egypt all the days of
            your  life'  - 'the days of your life' refers to the days; 'ALL
            the days of your life' refers to the nights. But the Sages say,
            'the  days  of  your life' refers to this world; 'ALL' comes to
            add the messianic era." (Mishna, Berakhot 12b)

According  to  Rabbi Elazar Ben Azarya, the mitzva to remember the Exodus -
"zekhira"  -  applies  each  and  every night throughout the year, a ruling
codified  by  the  Rambam  as  authoritative halakha (Hilkhot Keri'at Shema
1:3). If so, "How is this night different from all other nights?" What need
is  there  for  a  specific  mitzva to retell - "sippur" - the story of the
Exodus on the seder night?

The  Minchat Chinukh (mitzva 21) suggests a number of ways in which one can
fulfill the obligation of "zekhira" without performing the unique mitzva of
"sippur."  He cites a distinction raised by the Pri Megadim relating to the
possibility   of   fulfilling   the  given  obligation  through  non-verbal
contemplation  ("hirhur"):  one  may,  perhaps,  fulfill the requirement of
"zekhirat  yetzi'at  Mitzrayim" through a silent mental process, while that
of  "sippur"  demands  verbal recounting. The Minchat Chinukh cites another
possibility  suggested  by the Sha'agat Aryeh: the mitzva of "sippur" might
require the reminiscence of the specific miracles and wonders that occurred
on this night, while on other nights a mere general recollection suffices.

Along  similar  lines, Rav Chayim Brisker ("Chidushei Ha-Grach al Ha-shas,"
40) adds several technical requirements mandated by the mitzva of "sippur."
As  opposed  to "zekhira," the "sippur" must take the form of storytelling,
or, more specifically, the process of question-and-answer. Furthermore, the
process  of "sippur" most follow a specific format, that of "beginning with
shame  and  ending  with praise" (meaning, we must begin the story with our
inauspicious,  idolatrous origins, and conclude with our emergence as God's
nation).  Another  obligation unique to "sippur" is the need to explain the
reasons  behind  the mitzvot of the seder. This requirement is expressed in
the Haggada, by Rabban Gamliel:

            "Whoever  does  not  mention  these  things  on  Pesach has not
            fulfilled  his obligation; they are: [korban] pesach, matza and
            maror." (Pesachim 116a)

SUGGESTION #1: ZEKHIRA AND SIPPUR ARE TWO ASPECTS OF THE SAME MITZVA

All  these  distinctions  share  a  common  denominator: the annual "sippur
yetzi'at  Mitzrayim"  at  the  seder  demands  more  than  does its nightly
counterpart,  "zekhirat yetzi'at Mitzrayim." The aforementioned differences
do  not, however, express a fundamental difference between the two mitzvot.
One may thus argue that, essentially, the two mitzvot are one and the same.
However,  since  the Torah could not demand such an intense level of detail
twice  each  day,  it  designated  the  special  night  of  Pesach  for the
recitation  of  the  entire  story,  from  beginning  to end, while a brief
mention suffices all year round.

This  understanding of the relationship between sippur and zekhira helps us
solve another mystery.

The  Rambam  explicitly  rules in accordance with Rabbi Elazar Ben Azarya's
view, requiring "zekhirat yetzi'at Mitzrayim" both by day and by night. Yet
he  does  not  include  this  mitzva  in  his list of the 613 commandments,
neither  in  his Sefer Ha-mitzvot nor in the Yad Ha-chazaka. He mentions it
only  as  an aside in his discussion of the laws relevant to Keri'at Shema,
as  a  basis  for  including the parasha of tzitzit in Shema even at night,
when the obligation of tzitzit does not apply.

            "What  does  one  read  [to fulfill the mitzva of Shema]? Three
            sections,  and  they  are:  'Shema,'  'Ve-haya  im shamoa,' and
            'Vayomer'...   [One reads] the parasha of tzitzit, since it too
            contains the command to remember all the mitzvot.

            Although  the mitzva of tzitzit does not apply at nighttime, we
            read  it  at  night  insofar  as  it  makes mention of yetzi'at
            Mitzrayim,  and there is a mitzva to mention yetzi'at Mitzrayim
            both  by  day  and  by  night,  as  it says, 'In order that you
            remember  the  day  you  left Egypt all the days of your life.'
            Reading  these three parshiyot in their proper sequence is what
            is called 'Keri'at Shema.'" (Hilkhot Keri'at Shema 1:2-3)

However,  based  upon  the  above,  we can suggest that zekhira is included
within the context of the mitzva of sippur. The Rambam writes:

            "It  is  a  positive  commandment  of  the Torah to tell of the
            miracles  and  wonders  that  were performed for our fathers in
            Egypt  on  the  night  of  the fifteenth of Nissan, as it says,
            'Remember  this  day  that  you  left  Egypt,' just as it says,
            'Remember  the  Sabbath day.' And how do we know that it is the
            fifteenth?  The  Rabbis  teach:  'And  you  shall tell your son
            (Ve-higadeta  le-vinkha) on that days as follows, On account of
            THIS  [God  did for me...]' - namely, at the time when there is
            matza and maror is placed before you." (Hilkhot Chametz U-matza
            7:1)

One  can  interpret  the  phrase  "the night of the fifteenth of Nissan" as
singling  out  the  night  when  the  mitzva of sippur applies. If so, this
halakha  refers  exclusively  to  the mitzva of sippur. Alternatively, this
phrase  may  be  qualifying  which  miracles  one  must relate, namely, the
miracles  that  occurred  on  the  night of the fifteenth of Nissan. If so,
there is no limitation to when the mitzva applies. Therefore, one may claim
that this halakha begins with zekhira (derived from "Remember this day that
you  left Egypt"), and only later focuses upon sippur, which is specific to
the seder night (and learned from "And you shall tell your son").

Accordingly,  zekhira  is  not  counted  separately  because  it  is not an
independent mitzva, but rather merges with the mitzva of sippur.

SUGGESTION  #2:  ZEKHIRA  IS  PART  OF  THE MITZVA OF ACCEPTING THE YOKE OF
HEAVEN

Rav  Chaim  Brisker  offered  a  different  solution  to  this problem. His
grandson Rav Joseph Soloveitchik writes:

            "My  grandfather  also said that the entire mitzva of 'zekhirat
            yetzi'at   Mitzrayim'   does   not  constitute  an  independent
            fulfillment  of  an  obligation. Rather, its basic essence is a
            fulfillment  of  the  acceptance of the yoke of the Kingship of
            Heaven.   This   constitutes   a  specific  law  regarding  the
            acceptance  of  the yoke of His Kingship, which must take place
            also  through the recollection of yetzi'at Mitzrayim." (Shiurim
            Le-zekher Abba Mari, vol. 1, p.1)

For  good  reason, then, the Rambam addresses "zekhirat yetzi'at Mitzrayim"
only  as an aside in his presentation of the laws of Shema. This obligation
comprises  not  an  independent  mitzva,  but  rather one detail within the
framework  of  the  mitzva  of  reading  Shema.  Its  purpose  is  not  the
recollection  of  yetzi'at  Mitzrayim  per se, but rather the acceptance of
God's supreme authority that results therefrom.

This  understanding  of  zekhira led Rav Chaim to posit another distinction
between zekhira and sippur. Rav Soloveitchik writes:

            "I learned from my father, my teacher, in the name of our great
            rabbi  zt"l  [Rav  Chaim],  that  four  halakhot  separate  and
            distinguish  the  mitzva  of 'zekhirat yetzi'at Mitzrayim' from
            the mitzva of 'sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim"ג€¦

            4)  The  mitzva  of  'zekhirat  yetzi'at  Mitzrayim'  does  not
            constitute  an independent mitzva, but rather emanates from the
            mitzva  of  reciting the Shema and the fulfillment of accepting
            the  yoke  of the Kingdom of Heaven. The mitzva of 'sippur,' by
            contrast,  is  a  mitzva  of  its  own  among  the  list of 613
            [commandments]."  (ShiuriLe-zekher  Abba Mari z"l, vol. 1, p.2,
            note 4)

            It would seem to me that we should add a fifth distinction: the
            obligation  of  'zekhira'  does  not cast upon the individual a
            requirement  to  recite  praise and thanksgiving. The mitzva of
            'sippur,'  by  contrast,  requires  one not only to tell of the
            wonders  and  miracles  that  He  performed for us, but also to
            praise  and thank - [as we say at the end of the Maggid section
            of  the  Haggada,]  'Therefore  we  are  obliged  to  thank and
            praise...' Herein lies the basis of the obligation of reciting
            Hallel on Pesach eve."

M. Levin

"KiHilchos HaPesach" [Mechilta: "Veaf atah psach lo BI-hilchos HaPesach"]

R. Chaim P. Beinish in his Hagadah (Iyunei HaHagadah, Bnei Berak 5749)
notes/suggests that for the Tanaim "Hilchos HaPesach" means saying the
Hagadah, and suggests that it refers to the tenth perek of Pesachim
which may have served as the text (or ur-text) of the Hagadah. He cites
the Mechilta (Shemos 13:8) : "shetzrichin laasok bi-HILCHOS HAPESACH ad
Chatzos", Tosefta Pesachim 10:7: "Chayav Adam laasok bi-HILCHOS HAPESACH
kol HaLaylah", Mechilta 13:8: "Yachol MiRosh Chodesh yaschil haAv LIHAGID
livno HILCHOS HAPESACH", etc.

I would add the Tosefta 10:12 parallel to "Mayseh BiRabi Eliezer":
"Shehayu Mesubin . . . vehayu asukin Bi-HILCHOS HAPESACH kol oso HaLaylah"
as the parallel of "Vehayu MESAPRIM BIYITZIYAS MITRAYIM kol oso Halalylah"
in the Hagagdah.

So "KiHilchos HaPesach" would mean reading the entire Hagadah/Arvei
Pesachim until the last mishnah (relevant to Pesach) about "Ein
Maftirin". R. Dovid Tzvi Hoffman understands "KiHilchos HaPesach" as
the Mishnah of Raban Gamliel about PESACH [thus: "KiHilchos Ha-PESACH"],
Matzah, and Maror (-which certainly mentions Yetzias Mitzrayim).

Of course there IS a symmetry between the answer of (the whole nine
yards of) "KiHilchos HaPesach" and the Chochom's question in the text
from Devarim: Mah HaEidos, Chukim, U-Mishpatim", etc. (the preamble
to the Aseres HaDibros and all of the Chukim and Mishpatim throughout
Sefer Devarim).

Nachman Levine

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


[ 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         ]