‫למודי משה‬

‫על המועדים‬

‫פסח תשפ״ב‬
‫‪1‬‬
This Kuntros is dedicated in honour of all those who
donated so generously towards the printing costs as well as
those who help cover my weekly printing costs.

It is also dedicated in honour of my wife, parents and

in-laws as a small token of appreciation for all that they do
for me to enable to me to sit and learn Torah day and night
without interruption.

When Yitzchok gave the berachos to Yaakov he said: ‫ויתן לך‬

‫ האלקים מטל השמים ומשמני הארץ ורב דגן ותירש‬- "May Hashem
give you, from the dew of the heaven and from the fat of the
earth, abundance of new grain and wine."

Rashi asks, why there is an extra 'vov' on ‫ ויתן לך‬and he

answers: ‫[“ – יתן ויחזֹר ויתן‬Yitzchok was hinting] that Hashem
should give and continue to give”.

May all those who have helped towards the costs of this
Kuntros be blessed with health, happiness, parnosah and
all good things again and again and may you be able to
continue to give again in the future.

I would also like to take this opportunity to give thanks

Hakodosh Boruch Hu for giving me the strength and
determination to write this Kuntros and for all the ongoing
kindness He constantly bestows upon me and my family.
:
4
 ‫כ''ב שבט תשפ''ב‬

‫מכתב ברכה‬

‫הנה חזיתי איש מהיר במלאכתו ה''ה הרב הנעלה בכל מדה נכונה מוה''ר משה הריס שליט''א שכ' קונטרוס‬
‫נהדר על עניני פורים – וערכתי עליו וראיתי שהוא דברים בקילורין לעינים שנכתבו בטוב טעם ודעת‬
‫בבהירות גדולה והבנה ישרה ולכן ידי תוכון עמו להעלות את חידושיו על שולחן מלכים – מאן מלכי רבנן‬
‫– ויה''ר שיזכה עוד להגדילה תורה ולהאדירה מתוך בריאות הגוף ומנוחת הנפש‬

‫הכו''ח בהוקרה‬

‫שרגא פייבל הלוי זיממערמאן‬

‫)מכתב ברכה על ‪5‬‬
‫פורים קונטרוס תשפ״ב(‬
 Contents
Kashering new pots for Pesach……………………………………………………………..…6

The soaking maror in vinegar controversy……………………………………………..11

Kashering crowns and fillings for Pesach……………………………………………….13

Seder night shiurim………………………………………………………………………………..25

Suffering in order to perform a mitzvah ………………………………………………. 32

Understanding the minhag of gebrokts …………………………………………………37

The nature of the mitzvah of charoses ………………………..………………………… 45

The status of quinoa in regards to Pesach ………………………………………….... 48
Eating chometz sold to a goy over Pesach on Shabbos, when Pesach ends
on Friday night …………………………………………………………..…………………………53

Haggadah Insights…………….……………………………………... 57
Pesach Divrei Torah ………………………………………………………………………………95
Divrei Torah for Shevii Shel Pesach ……………………………………………………..105

The above kuntros as well as my weekly Parsha sheet is available to be

picked up from 37 Legh Street (Manchester), 2 Ashgrove Terrace
(Gateshead) or from 24 HaMem Gimmel, Knisa Beis, 1 floor up (Eretz
Yisrael).

This kuntros was written by Moshe Harris, please consult a Rov for final
halachic ruling. For any ha’oras or to receive my weekly Parsha sheet please
email me at limudaymoshe@gmail.com or call/text me on +447724840086
(UK) or 0585242543 (Eretz Yisroel).

To dedicate or sponsor a weekly Parsha sheet or future kuntrasim please

contact me on the above details.
6
 Kashering new pots for Pesach
A few years ago there was an advert that appeared in many newspapers in Eretz Yisroel,
stating that the Badatz Eidah Chareidis of Yerusholayim has halted its kashrus supervision
on a certain brand of pots. Therefore, this Rabbinic supervising agency proclaimed that
those purchasing the pots should be aware that hagolah [kashering the new pots via
boiling hot water] and tevilah [dipping them into a mikveh] are required. This
announcement left many puzzled as the Shulchan Aruch makes no mention of a
requirement to kasher new pots. Pots that have become treif, or previously owned/used
by a non-Jew, or have been used for chometz and are now being used for Pesach, need to
be kashered, but why should a new pot need to be kashered?

Mekor for kashering

The mekor for requiring the kashering of used pots from a non-Jew is from what happened
after milchemes Midyon [the war with Midyon], when Klal Yisroel were commanded to
kasher their spoils of war that were used for food preparation: ‫זאת חקת התורה אשר צוה‬
‫ה׳ את משה אך את הזהב ואת הכסף את הנחשת את הברזל את הבדיל ואת העפרת כל דבר אשר‬
‫ יבא באש תעבירו באש וטהר‬- “This is the rule that Hashem commanded Moshe: As far as
the gold, silver, copper, iron, tin and lead are concerned, whatever was used over fire must
be made to go through fire and purged…” (Bamidbar 31:21-23). The principle underlying
the methodology of kashering is found in the phrase: ‫– כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש‬
“whatever was used over fire must be made to go through fire...”; that is to say, the
manner in which a utensil was being used when the forbidden food entered it determines
how it will be kashered: Utensils which came into direct contact with fire are kashered by
direct contact with fire; utensils which were placed on the fire with liquids in them
are kashered by boiling liquid.

The above however, is describing utensils used by non-Jews; we however, are referring to
brand new pots that have never been used. The Mishnah Berurah (451:3) says explicitly,
that such pots do not need kashering, all they require is tevilah. So where does the notion
that new pots need to be kashered come from?

Nowadays manufacturers add a sheen to finished pots

The answer is, that nowadays many pot manufacturers add a “sheen” to the finished pot
in order to increase consumer appeal, as people seem to prefer a shiny look for their pot
over a dull one. However, this might unwittingly cause a kashrus concern. The problem

7
arises when the compound used to lubricate and facilitate this buffing in order to achieve
this “sheen” contains a non-kosher oil or fat (grease). The Eidah Chareidis and different
kashrus organizations give hashgachos on various utensils (i.e. aluminum disposable pans)
in order to make sure that any oil used in manufacturing is vegetable or petroleum-based
and so would not have this problem at all.

Reasons to be lenient

However, even without a hashgachah, there are many arguments that can be made to say
that hagolah is not required:

1) It is not certain that these pots have this sheen (maybe a majority, but by no means all).

2) It is possible that even with a “sheen”, nonetheless kosher oils (grease) are used in the
makeup of the compound.

3) Even if one wants to assume that the oils and grease used are indeed non-kosher, and
therefore problematic, and require the pots to be kashered (like the opinions of the
Chazon Ish (Y.D. 44:4) and Har Tzvi (Y.D. 110) who say hagolah is required) it must be
noted that they were referring to a situation where the new pots were purposely buffed
with actual non-kosher oils while being heated, which is fairly uncertain here.

4) The Tzitz Eliezer adds that it is not completely clear that the Chazon Ish and Har Tzvi
actually maintain that hagolah is required, as they were coming to disprove others who
assert that the more stringent libun [actually placing the utensil into a direct fire until red
hot] is necessary and hagolah would not be sufficient; the Har Tzvi and Chazon Ish merely
state that hagolah would definitely work.

5) Many contemporary poskim, including the Minchas Yitzchok, Tzitz Eliezer, Rav Ovadia
Yosef and others all maintain that even if the pot was buffed with actual non-kosher
grease, nowadays it is clear that the oils used are rendered completely unfit for
consumption and are utterly inedible (pogum) to the extent that even a dog would not eat
it, and consequentially do not present a kashrus concern.

Although normally the halachah is, that the heter of pogum is only bedieved, nevertheless,
in our scenario, many poskim (see for example Toras Chatos 85:23 and Pri Megodim, Yoreh
Deah 103) differentiate that something that starts out pogum is mutar even lechatchila.
The contemporary poskim apply this to our case as well, that since the issur involved
would be rendered pogum long before the pot’s initial use, one may therefore rely on this
even lechatchila.

8
6) Some add that the amount of non-kosher substance in the makeup of the buffing
compound is unquestionably nullified, as it is present only in negligible amounts. Rav
Belsky even says that the amount of non-kosher oils used in the buffing compound (which
weighs 3.5 oz.) is not more than 12%, and comes out that there is only 0.42 oz. of said oil
buffed in and therefore is nullified.

7) Rav Moshe Feinstein (brought in Ohalei Yeshurun vol. 1, Ch. 4 note 23) was lenient as
well, but for an entirely different reason: The reason why a pot that has absorbed taste
more than 24 hours prior still remains prohibited is because of a gezeirah otu ben yoimo -
one might make a mistake and use a pot that was used for non-kosher within the past 24
hours and transgress an issur de’O’raisa. But with these pots, it is not physically possible
for someone to buy a new pot within 24 hours of its actual manufacture, therefore, in this
instance, Chazal would not have made such a decree, as a result the pot does not require
any kashering.

[Although what R’ Moshe says sounds like a big chiddush, there is a similar case in Yoreh
Deah 108:3 of the pala, where since it was not possible to use in any other way Chazal
weren’t gozer. However, the Seridei Aish (2:35) does not accept this comparison, as the
case of the pala is where one has no other option; in our case, he maintains that one has
alternative solutions available: to buy from a fellow Jew or at least kasher the pot if
brought from a non-Jew.

Yet, it must be noted that from the way the Seridei Aish addressed the issue, it seems that
he understood the problem to be referring to mamashos [actual issur] on the pot, as he
compares our case to one of an oven that’s coated in grease and almost impossible to
clean properly, and not a problem of absorbed taste, which is the actual issue.]

8) The Mishneh Halachos adds a further reason to be lenient: It’s possible that due to the
intense heat used in forming the pot (annealing process), the actual issur might get burned
off.

Eidah Chareidis themselves are lenient

Due to the above reasons, the Eidah Chareidis themselves, in their annual Madrich
HaKashrus (Pesach 5770, pg. 25, 26) write, that after buying new pots that have this issue,
the “custom” is to be “stringent” to kasher it. It does not state that this oil used renders
the pot forbidden until it is kashered, rather that the minhag is to be machmir to do so
because of this concern.

In other words, Badatz themselves hold that this issue falls under the category
of chumrah and not practical halachah, presumably based on the many arguments raised
above.

9
R’ Yehuda Spitz relates that he spoke with the mashgiach in charge of overseeing pot
production, who clarified their shitta [opinion]. The mashgiach explained that sometimes
non-kosher oils are used in the process, even though generally kosher is used, and this oil
is definitely ‫ – אינו ראוי לאכילה‬not fit to be eaten. However, they are choshesh [worried]
that it is not truly pogum, and therefore maintain that based on this chashash one should
definitely kasher a new pot.

In the Badatz’s Madrich HaKashrus (Pesach 5771, bottom of page 38) it is written explicitly
in the name of Rav Moshe Aryeh Freund that the need for kashering new pots is only
a chumrah, based on a chashash that the ta’am [taste] of shuman issur [fatty issur] was
possibly not rendered pogum, and in times of need one does not have to be choshesh for
this.

R’ Yehuda Spitz further relates that he spoke to Rav Yaakov Blau, a senior member of the
Badatz Eidah Chareidis and one of the heads of their hashgachah, and he told him
explicitly (on Chol HaMoed Pesach 5771) that the need to kasher new pots is “stam a
chumrah b’alma”, a mere stringency, but qualified that with saying “avol yesh mokam
l’chumrah zu”, that there is still halachic room for this stringency.

In conclusion, it seems that if one would like to be stringent and kasher his new pot in
order to remove any doubt, he is within his rights to do so, as it has become customary
even among many in Eretz Yisroel, and especially for Pesach. But the halachic bottom line
is that with or without the hashgocha, the new pots most definitely do not require
kashering before use, as Rav Menashe Klein writes “puk chazi mah ama davar”, go out
and see what people do, that the common custom is to be lenient and not to
require kashering for these pots at all.

Those who are machmir to kasher new pots relax some of the usual requirements

Even amongst the poskim who are of the opinion that one should kasher a new pot, many
feel that the usual requirements of hagolah are relaxed in our case. For example, Rav
Elyashiv, Rav Wosner and Rav Feinhandler all maintain that since the kashering in our case
is only because of a chumrah, in order to kasher, all that is required is to do hagolah on
the inside – let the pot fill up and heat it until a rolling boil where it will splash.

Rav Shlomah Zalman Auerbach (Halichos Shlomo on Moadim vol. 2, Hilchos Pesach, Ch.3,
Dvar Halachah end 4, footnote 12) was even more lenient. He held that since the whole
problem is a “chashash b’almah”, small worry, all one has to do is add a little water to the
pot and heat it until it’s yad soledes; by doing so, the walls also heat up and are
considered kashered.

10
The Tzitz Eliezer who holds that there is no reason to do hagolah, adds, that if one wants
to be machmir, he can rely on kashering through iruy [pouring], even though normally
that would insufficient.

The soaking maror in vinegar controversy

One of the main mitzvos that we fulfill on seder night is the mitzvah of eating maror [bitter
herbs], to remind ourselves of the bitterness that out ancestors felt in Mitzrayim. The
Mishnah in Pesochim (39a) lists five different types of herbs that are classified as maror.
The Gemara (and later paskened by the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 473:5) rules that the
best herb to use to fulfill the mitzvah of maror is chazeres (chasa) which is identified as
Romaine lettuce.

[It’s clear from the Yerushalmi (20b), that even if the maror isn’t actually bitter it can be
used for the mitzvah of maror, and therefore iceberg lettuce can also be used, however,
the Gemara couldn’t have been referring to such lettuce as it was only first grown locally
in Salinas Valley, California and only exported nationally starting in 1926 by famed lettuce
farmer Bruce Church, who devised a way to ship them packed with ice; hence the name
iceberg lettuce. See also Shu”t Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim 4:91,3) who mentions that the
common American lettuce was unknown in Europe. Additionally, there are opinions who
feel that any lettuce used for maror must contain at least some bitterness (see Chazon Ish
– Orach Chaim 124), therefore romaine lettuce would seemingly be a preferred choice.]

In previous years, lettuce was a rare commodity and often infested, and therefore
horseradish became the herb of choice for the mitzvah of maror. The Mishnah Berurah
(473:42) even rules that if one does not know how to properly check for bugs, it is
preferential to eat horseradish for maror.

In recent years however, they have started to grow maror in special greenhouses and it
now has significantly less bugs and is much easier to check and is now used by most people
on seder night.

Badatz Eidah Chareidis investigate how to ensure romaine lettuce is bug free

In 1978 in order to allow the masses to fulfill the maror requirement in the best possible
manner, the Badatz Eidah Chareidis of Yerusholayim consulted with top experts in the
field to ascertain if there is any available method that would rid the romaine lettuce of its
insects entirely. They came up with the following method: first washing the lettuce in
vinegar (which makes the bugs loosen their grip on the lettuce), then rinsing it in a strong
steady stream of water (to actively wash the insects off), and finally checking every leaf
very well in front of a strong light to ensure that no hidden critters are remaining (Madrich
HaKashrus 5738 (1978) pg. 22)

11
The big machlokes

The above advice led to a fiery machlokes between R’ Shlomah Zalman Auerbach and R’
Rav Yitzchok Yaakov Weiss, the renowned Minchas Yitzchok, who was then the Av Beis Din
of the Eidah Chareidis.

Rav Shlomah Zalman (Shu”t Minchas Shlomo vol. 2, 58, 21; Tinyona 52 and see also
Halichos Shlomo, Moadim vol. 2, Pesach Ch. 7,26) maintained that soaking the lettuce for
any amount of time in vinegar would be considered an act of kovush [pickling], which in
some ways is halachically akin to cooking, and would thereby disqualify this lettuce from
being used as maror. Although kovush generally only takes effect after an item has been
immersed for a full 24 hours (Yoreh Deah 105) when an item is soaked in salty brine it is
considered pickled after only 18 minutes, and a kedai klipah [fingernail thin segment] of
the item is even affected immediately.

If so, argues Rav Shlomah Zalman, since several poskim, including the Shulchan Aruch
himself (105:1) the Kreisi U’Pleisi (105:4) and the Chochmas Adam (58:3), feel that vinegar
shares the status of a salty brine solution, as soon as the lettuce is placed inside a bowl of
vinegar, a kedai klipah of it would be considered kovush. Moreover, since the whole
lettuce leaf is so thin, the entire leaf would instantly become kovush, and cooked or
pickled bitter herbs are disqualified for maror use (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim
473:5, and Mishnah Berurah 473:38 who specifies kovush in vinegar as problematic).

The Minchas Yitzchok’s defense

The Minchas Yitzchok (7:31 and 8:61) defends the above practice. First of all, although the
Shulchan Aruch equates vinegar to salty brine, many other poskim including the Shach, Pri
Chodash, Gr”a and Mishna Berurah (447: 71, Shaar HaTziyon 95), disagree completely and
feel that immersion in vinegar is not considered kovush until a full 24 hours have passed.

Furthermore, several poskim feel that even according to the opinion of the Shulchan
Aruch, it is possible that vinegar is not entirely equated to salty brine, thus negating the
instant kedai klipah effect (Pri Chodash 105:4, Pri Toar 105:4 and Gr”a 105:10).

Additionally, the Mishnah’s ruling that pickled herbs may not be used as maror is only
referring to when its essential taste is changed through the kovush process (see sugya in
Pesochim); merely soaking the leaves in vinegar for a short period of time undoubtedly
would not change the lettuce’s taste.

Finally, since we are trying to fulfill the mitzvah of eating maror in the best possible
manner (by using romaine lettuce), one may certainly rely on these rationales b’makom
mitzvah [in place of a mitzvah].

12
A novel approach that helped resolve the issue

Both Rav Shlomah Zalman and the Minchas Yitzchok stuck with their opinions, sending
many Teshuvos back and forth to each other, offering rationales and proofs to their
positions. It wasn’t until a relatively young Rabbi, Rav Matis Deutsch (today a Rabbi on the
Eidah Chareidis and Rov of Ramat Shlomah in Yerusholayim) tackled the topic (Shu”t
Nesivos Adam 1:37) that new clarity was achieved.

He starts off his Teshuvah presenting various reasons to be lenient and concludes with a
very important point. Standard commercial vinegar available nowadays is not 100% pure
vinegar. Rather, it is only 5% actual vinegar; the vast majority of its composition is water!
Furthermore, many of the poskim who equate vinegar to brine qualify the ruling by
specifying that it is only applicable to strong vinegar, and not weak vinegar (see for
example Magen Avraham, Orach Chaim 447:28). Moreover, even for the salty brine itself,
when it is mixed with mainly water, the halachah is that it can no longer immediately
effect an immersed item (Rema, Yoreh Deah 70,:6). Therefore, he concludes, that one
need not be concerned with following the experts’ advice to soak our lettuce in our
commercial weak vinegar for the short period of time mandated, as it certainly will not
effect it!

Rabbi Pesach Eliyohu Falk (Shu”t Machazeh Eliyohu 92), although not writing as
extensively, concludes similarly.

R’ Yehuda Spitz relates that he spoke to Rav Deutsch who told him that when Rav Shlomah
Zalman read his conclusive proof, he personally thanked him for enabling Klal Yisroel to
partake in the mitzvah of eating maror lechatchila.

Kashering crowns and fillings for Pesach

Many foods that people eat nowadays contain large amounts of sugar, as a result, most
people have some sort of filling or crown in their mouths. These items are made out of
different materials which, if used for cookware, would require some type of kashering for
Pesach. Therefore, the question arises: since these materials come into contact with
chometz in ones mouth, do they require kashering for Pesach? The issue of kashering ones
mouth also applies to milk and meat. Does one need to kasher his mouth in-between milk
and meat? Although the above sounds bizarre, we will see, that there may not be such a
difference between fillings and pots. When it comes to normal teeth, everyone agrees
that one doesn’t have to kasher them in order to render them suitable for Pesach, as they
are considered part and parcel of the body. Furthermore, the material of which they are
fashioned (enamel) is not considered halachically absorbent. That is why nothing more
than a thorough cleaning (brushing and flossing) on erev Pesach after eating our last bite
of chometz is necessary to have a kosher for Pesach mouth.

13
Ta’am [taste]

The above discussion revolves around the halachic concept of ta’am [taste]. When two
foods are cooked together, the taste of each one is transferred to the other. Taste is not
only transferred between foods, it is also transferred to the keli [utensil] in which the
foods are being cooked. The taste that gets absorbed into other foods and keilim are
called beli’os. Keilim not only absorb beli’os, they give off beli’os as well. This means
previous beli’os absorbed in the pot (even if the pot has been cleaned) are released
during a subsequent cooking process and enter into the food being cooked. It is
therefore forbidden to cook meat in a milky pot, as the beli’os of milk will be released
by the pot and enter into the meat, rendering the food treif. Furthermore, the ta’am of
the meat will be absorbed by the pot, making the pot unusable due to the fact that it
has a mixture of milky and meaty beli’os (Yoreh Deah 93:1).

The above concern should apply to dental fillings as well. For example, the fillings will
absorb the taste of a hot piece of pizza, and then, when the person has some hot chicken
soup, the taste of the cheese will be released from the filling and enter the chicken soup.
Additionally, the taste of the soup will be absorbed by the filling, making the filling now
have beli’os of bosar vecholov [milk and meat]. Any hot food then placed into the mouth
will cause a release of beli’os of bosar vecholov, i.e. treife beli’os.

It would seem that fillings should follow the same rules as pots, why, then, is the
common practice to not worry about this issue? Even if there is no reason to be
concerned normally, shouldn’t we be stricter when it comes to Pesach? And if we should
be machmir [stringent], how would we go about kashering our mouths?

Many poskim discuss the issue of ta’am and beli’os with regards to dentures, and if there
is a need to kasher dentures, or have various pairs of dentures for milk, meat, and
Pesach? Dentures are easier to kasher as they can be taken in and out of the mouth.
Even though the bulk of their discussion revolves around dentures, there are many ideas
that are presented in those discussions that apply to permanent fillings as well. Some
of the many poskim who write about this topic are the Tzitz Eliezer (9:25), Minchas
Yitzchok (8:37), and Darchei Teshuvah (Yoreh De’ah 89:11). Below however, we will
discuss the approaches of Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yechaveh Da’as 1:8) and Rav Shlomah
Zalman Auerbach (Minchas Shlomah 2:46).

Rav Ovadia Yosef’s approach

In Yechaveh Da’as (1:8), Rav Ovadia brings three reasons as to why one can be lenient
with beli’os of chometz, and not require a separate pair of dentures for Pesach. The first
two reasons focus on why there are no beli’os or ta’am transfers when it comes to the

14
mouth in general, and the third reason is why there are no beli’os specifically in
dentures.

First approach

The first reason that Rav Ovadia discusses is the concept of keli rishon versus keli sheini.
A keli rishon is the pot in which the food was originally cooked on the fire; a keli sheini
is the vessel into which the food was first transferred. For example, if a piece of meat
was cooked in a pot and then placed on a plate, the pot is a keli rishon, and the plate is
a keli sheini. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 105:2) quotes two opinions concerning
the status of a keli sheini with regard to ta’am transfer. One opinion is that there is no
transfer of ta’am in a keli sheini, no matter what the temperature of the food is. The
second opinion states that there is a transfer up to a kelipah, which is a peel’s worth.
This means that there is some absorption of ta’am, but it doesn’t penetrate through the
entire keli (only the ‘peel’, or outermost layer).The Shulchan Aruch paskens that
lechatchilah one should be careful, but bedieved in a keli sheini beli’os do not transfer
ta’am, and rinsing the food is good enough. This means that if there was hot chicken
soup in a bowl (which is a keli sheini) and some pizza fell in the bowl after one ate the
soup, the pizza is kosher bedieved, but one must wash the bowl.

Many other poskim (such as the Badei HaShulchan) say that one should be strict and
throw everything out unless it is a serious loss or pressing situation.

In the context of Pesach, Rav Ovadia Yosef notes that there is a machlokes as to the
opinion of the Shulchan Aruch. The Shulchan Aruch holds (451:5) that a keli sheini that
had chometz needs to be kashered for Pesach. Some are of the opinion (Bach 447 and
Shach, Yoreh Deah 105:5) that the Shulchan Aruch is being strict by Pesach that a keli
sheini does transfer ta’am. However, Rav Ovadia quotes others, such as the Magen
Avraham (451:13), who argue that the Shulchan Aruch is only saying that lechatchilah
there is a concern of transfer of ta’am with keli sheini, but bedieved even by Pesach a
keli sheini does not transfer ta’am. Rav Ovadia goes further and quotes the Aruch
HaShulchan who writes that even according to the Rema (447:3), who says we should
be strict by a keli sheini for Pesach, this is only a chumrah, but not the ikar halachah
[true halachah].

Even according to those who are strict by a keli sheini for Pesach, Rav Ovadia suggests that
teeth may be different. He states that the mouth should be considered a keli shlishi [third
separate vessel]. The Chofetz Chaim writes in Sha’ar HaTziyon (451:10) that we are lenient
for chometz by a keli shlishi (Aruch HaShulchan 447:23 agrees). Consequently, if one views
the mouth as a keli shlishi, then Pesach would not pose a problem of transfer of ta’am.

15
However, there are a number of issues with this first approach presented by Rav Ovadia.
The first is a practical one: sometimes one who is cooking the food tastes the food that is
on the stove, in which case he will be eating from a keli rishon (rendering the mouth a keli
sheini). The second problem is, many poskim hold that a keli sheini can transfer ta’am
bekulo [in the entire piece]. These poskim hold, that as long as something is boiling it can
transfer ta’am, even if it is not Pesach. Furthermore, if the food is in a keli sheini, it has
the strength to be mavlia [absorb] and maflit [release] ta’am.

Furthermore, some poskim say that this rule of the Shulchan Aruch and Rema is only for
liquids, but would not apply to a dovar gush [solid]. Solid foods are even stricter: a boiling
hot solid food retains the status of a keli rishon and can even be mevashel [cook]. It can
also transfer ta’am in a keli sheini, as long as it is yad soledes boi (literally, hot enough that
one would retract his hand from it).

Second approach

The second approach which Rav Ovadia discusses, is that the temperature of the food
entering the mouth is not hot enough to cause any transfer of ta’am. The Gemara in
Shabbos (40b) says that the heat for bishul (and we assume for ta’am as well) is yad
soledes boi. The Gemara defines this as the temperature which will burn a baby’s stomach.
This temperature is hard to measure for obvious reasons; therefore, Rav Ovadia quotes
the Ben Ish Chai who writes that the definition of yad soledes boi is food that cannot be
placed in your mouth because it is too hot. Rav Ovadia Yosef states that the Maharsham
(1:196) also writes that anything that could burn one's mouth is considered yad soledes
boi. Based on the above, there can be no beli’os created in your mouth because nothing
placed in your mouth is hot enough to transfer any beli’os into the fillings.

Does this leniency apply for Pesach as well? The Maharsham actually quotes a machlokes
about whether food in the mouth can be yad soledes boi. In the context of milk and meat
he says one can be lenient, but in the context of Pesach perhaps one should be strict.
Therefore, according to the Maharsham we can’t say the above in regards to Pesach.

The above approach is a bit difficult, because most modern day poskim have determined
that we eat and drink foods that are yad soledes boi. The exact temperature of yad soledes
boi is a big discussion amongst the poskim. Rav Dovid Ribiat (author of the famed work
“39 Melachos”), quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein who says it can be anywhere from as low as
110 degrees to as high as 160 degrees. Rav Aharon Kotler says it is 120 degrees. Rav
Shlomah Zalman Auerbach, citing a sugya in Chullin (8a), says it is 113 degrees Fahrenheit.
These temperatures are actually lower than some temperatures of food that are put in
our mouths. Rav Ribiat writes that coffee is usually about 125 degrees, hot tea is about
165 degrees, and hot chicken soup is 180 degrees. Rav Shlomah Zalman Auerbach says

16
that according to those opinions, that yad soledes boi is the temperature of “a baby’s
stomach is burned by it,” and not the amount of heat it takes for an average person to pull
his hand back, then some hot liquids are hotter than that. He also quotes the Pischei
Teshuvah (Yoreh Deah 105) who states that anything hotter than saliva is considered yad
soledes boi.

Therefore, it would seem that food of a temperature at or above yad soledes boi is
regularly placed in the mouth according to many opinions. In conclusion, it would
appear we should be strict by milk and meat as well as for Pesach.

Third approach

The third reason to be lenient that R’ Ovadia mentions, is that the dentures themselves
are made out of materials that cannot absorb taste. Rav Ovadia quotes the She’alas
Sholam (Mahadurah Tinyona 195) and the Darchei Teshuva (99:11) who asked a doctor
who claimed that dentures do not absorb taste, as if they did it would cause the dentures
to smell and be a source for germs.

This approach may also be difficult on a scientific level. Many dentures are made with
metal components which should absorb ta’am just like other metals. The non-metal
dentures are really a form of plastic; plastic is subject to a machlokes hapoksim as to
whether it has the status of a keli cheres [earthenware vessel] which has beli'os but
cannot be kashered, the status of a metal which absorbs and can release, or the status
of glass which does not even absorb. Some are of the opinion that even though in theory
they can be kashered, nevertheless, we are afraid that one may not kasher the plastic
utensil in boiling water properly. The same would be true for dentures. Therefore,
according to many poskim, dentures do absorb and cannot be kashered. Additionally,
some dentures do have a bad smell to them if not kept clean, refuting the words of the
doctor quoted above.

Answering up R’ Ovadia

Rav Ovadia Yosef’s three approaches left us with a few questions. In his first approach,
we still had to work out the fact that some opinions hold a keli sheini is mavli’a and
maflit. Even a liquid is as long as it's yad soledes boi. Moreover, there is the issue of a
dovar gush. The second approach of Rav Ovadia is not consistent to modern day
findings. The third approach may be problematic in a practical way: many have metal
dentures which do absorb be’lios and even those who for those who have plastic, many
poskim hold that plastic absorbs and can’t be kashered.

We can answer the first question simply by saying that we don't pasken like those who say
a keli sheini at the minimum is able to be mavlia and maflit. As the Aruch HaShulchan

17
(105:19-20) writes, most poskim do not follow this opinion at all, and even if the liquid is
yad soledes boi, it cannot transfer ta’am in a keli sheini. Furthermore, according to the
stringent opinions, our case of fillings and dentures is a case of sha’as hadechak [pressing
need]. Fillings are a sha’as hadechak because it is impractical to kasher one’s mouth all
the time. As Rav Shmuel Wosner (Shevet HaLevi 1:148) writes, it is something that ‫רוב‬
‫ ציבור אין יכולים לעמוד בה‬- “the majority of the congregation cannot stand by.”

Rav Ovadia himself explains that dentures are a sha’as hadechak because it is impossible
to kasher them without destroying them. Dentures are also a hefsed merubah [great loss],
since buying many pairs are expensive. Therefore, even according to the stringent
opinions, the Taz (105:4) writes that in a case of dovar choshuv [important matter] or
hefsed merubah [major monetary loss], we can be lenient and rely on those opinions who
hold that a keli sheini (even if the liquid is yad soledes boi) cannot transfer ta’am. In terms
of chometz, we can be lenient as well due to hefsed merubah.

The Aruch HaShulchan (447:11) and the Mishnah Berurah (447:26) write, that even though
by Pesach we are more machmir with regards to a keli sheini, in a case of a hefsed merubah
and simchas Yom Tov, we can fall back on the regular halachah. Fillings and dentures are
very expensive and if one would have to keep buying new ones it would cost a lot of
money, therefore, perhaps one can be lenient and rely on the regular rule that a keli sheini
does not transfer ta’am by a liquid even if it is yad soledes boi.

Additionally, R’ Shlomah Zalman points out, that in regards to chometz there are many
opinions that hold that the Rema is only machmir that a keli sheini absorbs ta’am when
one can kasher the keli, if the keli cannot be kashered, then the normal rule applies. Here
too, writes R’ Shlomah Zalman, it is impossible to kasher fillings, and in order to kasher
them we should rely on the normal rule that a keli sheini is not a mavliah. Even more so,
one can claim that the mouth is really a keli shlishi.

We can answer the dovar gush problem the same way. Concerning a dovar gush, the
Aruch HaShulchan (94:32) writes, that in a case of hefsed merubah or bedieved, one can
rely on the Rema. Since fillings are a hefsed merubah we can be lenient and rely on the
opinions who are lenient. Additionally, the Shevet HaLevi (1:148) quotes the Chasam
Sofer (Yoreh Deah 95) who writes that in a difficult situation one can be lenient by a
dovar gush. Even in regards to Pesach, the Pri Megodim notes (Orach Chaim, Eshel
Avraham 451:38) that in terms of a significant loss we are lenient for a dovar gush in a
keli sheni.

Even though we asked that it is possible for someone to taste or eat something from a
keli rishon, perhaps we can rely on the idea that the mouth itself is a keli. Therefore, the
mouth is a keli sheini and one can rely on the leniencies just expressed.

18
In regards to whether or not plastic absorbs and is kasherable, since this situation is a
sha’as hadechak and hefsed merubah we would need to follow the lenient opinions that
they either don't absorb, or they absorb and can be kashered. We would also need to
follow the opinions that hold that since one is not concerned that the utensil will be
damaged when it is used as a keli rishon, for kashering as well the individual will have
no fear of kashering it in a keli rishon. Additionally, since dentures are used to sip boiling
hot tea, there is no worry that the person will be nervous when they kasher the dentures
with boiling hot water.

Another resolution to the above questions

Perhaps we can answer the above questions on R’ Ovadia using an idea proposed by the
Pri Megodim in a different context. The Pri Megodim (Orach Chaim 105) presents the
idea of a sfek sfeika [a double doubt], as a reason to be lenient in the case of a keli sheini.
He writes that in a case where one knew for sure that an issur (e.g. a piece of chazor)
fell into a kosher bowl of food, but does not know if the food was yad soledes boi, then
the food is mutar because of a sfek sfeika; the food may or may not have been yad
soledes boi, and even if it was yad soledes boi we may hold that a keli sheini does not
transfer taste. Perhaps we can say the same thing here: we are not sure the food placed
in the mouth is yad soledes boi and even if we say it is yad soledes boi, perhaps we hold
a keli sheini does not transfer taste.

R’ Shlomah Zalman’s approach – nosein ta’am lifgam

Another idea which Rav Shlomah Zalman Auerbach introduces is the leniency of nosein
ta’am lifgam. Nosein ta’am lifgam is when the flavors of the food, or beli’os, in the pot
become nifsal, corrode, and lose their good taste. If there would be beli’os of meat in a
pot which had become nosein ta’am lifgam, and one would then cook in the pot milk
there would be no issue of cooking meat and milk together. One way the taste becomes
pogum [bad] is if the pot is not used for 24 hours; the beli’os in the pot become pogum,
and are known as eino ben yoimo. If one cooks milk in a meaty pot that was not used in
the previous 24 hours, then the food is kosher (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 103:5).

Nosein ta’am lifgam is only bedieved?

The halachah is, that one cannot rely on the heter of nosein ta’am lifgam lechatchilah,
it is only a heter bedieved (Hagoas R’ Akiva Eiger 103:5). If this situation arises, one can
eat the food after the fact, but one cannot deliberately use a meat pot that w as not
used within 24 hours to cook milk.

However, Rav Shlomah Zalman Auerbach writes that perhaps one can rely on this idea
for Pesach: one should not eat anything hot within 24 hours of Pesach, and then all the

19
beli’os will be nosein ta’am lifgam. Even though eating on Pesach would be using nosein
ta’am lifgam lechatchilah, nevertheless, this is a sha’as hadechak situation which should
allow for this kulah, as otherwise it would be impossible to eat anything hot on Pesach.

There is a rule that sha’as hadechak is kedieved domi, meaning that in a case of pressing
need, we are permitted to use measures normally only justifiable after the fact. In this
scenario, if bedieved nosein ta’am lifgam is allowed, then nosein ta’am lifgam is allowed
in a sha’as hadechak situation. Although the Rema (Orach Chaim 447:10) rules in
regards to Pesach that we are stringent about nosein ta’am lifgam, and food which falls
under this classification is forbidden even on a level of bedieved. However, once again
for a sha’as hadechak one is allowed to be lenient, since it seems from the Rema that
this is only a chumrah and dependent on minhogim (Aruch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim
447:21). Therefore, once again we can say that since fillings and dentures are a sha’as
hadechak, we can rely on nosein ta’am lifgam.

Perhaps it is better to rely on Rav Shlomah Zalman Auerbach’s idea of creating nosein
ta’am lifgam as opposed to using the earlier leniency of dovar gush, because even
though both are relying on sha’as hadechak or hefsed merubah, a dovar gush is a
machlokes on a de’O’raisa level. The poskim who are concerned with a dovar gush hold
that a dovar gush can cook or transfer taste on a level of de’O’raisa; the reason why
lechatchilah, one cannot cook in a eino ben yoimo pot is only a rabbinic decree, lest one
may come to cook in a ben yoimo pot. Therefore, even if eating on Pesach is utilizing the
beli’os that are eino ben yoimo lechatchilah, this is only an issue on a rabbinic level.
Furthermore, the Rema’s stringency that nosein ta’am lifgam does not apply to chometz
is also a rabbinic decree. The reason why the Rema is machmir for nosein ta’am lifgam
with regard to chometz is because chometz is ossur bemashehu, meaning it prohibits a
mixture even in the smallest concentration. This idea that chometz is not botul [nullified]
in any amount is only a rabbinic prohibition due to the stringency of chometz, therefore,
the extension to nosein ta’am lifgam can only be a rabbinic prohibition. The leniency of
eino ben yoimo, however, would not work for the rest of the year in between milk and
meat, because it is unreasonable to continuously wait 24 hours between each meal.

The issue of dovor chorif

Rav Shlomah Zalman raises another problem: the issue of a dovar chorif, something
spicy and sharp, such as an onion. A dovar chorif is treated in a stricter fashion in many
areas, since a dovar chorif can cause taste to be transferred even without heat. Teeth
should be at least equivalent to a meducha [a mortar], which is considered to effect a
transfer of taste into a dovar chorif. Therefore, if one eats a raw onion cut by a meaty
knife, if the filling has a beli’ah of milk, that beli’ah would be absorbed by the meaty

20
onion, creating a treif onion. Similarly, a chometz beli’ah in teeth fillings will be brought
out by a dovar chorif on Pesach.

However, we must wonder: how do the beli’os enter the fillings in the first place, if, as Rav
Ovadia Yosef said, there is no yad soledes boi and the mouth is not a keli rishon? The
answer is, a dovar chorif doesn’t require yad soledes boi to effect transfer; all one needs
is duchka desakina, force from a knife or mortar, or in this case an incisor or molar. Duchka
desakina does not just cause a transfer of beli’os from the knife to the onion, they also
cause a transfer from onion to knife, so the beli’ah of milk, meat, or chometz in the onion
will be transferred to the fillings. Furthermore, Rav Shlomah Zalman points out that a
dovar chorif can even cause a transfer of taste with the heat of a keli sheini. Therefore, he
writes, that a hot piece of chometz which is a dovar chorif will cause a beli’ah of chometz
in the fillings. Additionally, the leniency of nosein ta’am lifgam cannot be utilized, because
a dovar chorif causes the beli’os to become lishvach [beneficial], so waiting for one day to
allow the beli’os to become eino ben yoimo will also not be effective

The heat and moisture in the mouth make the beli’os more pogum than normal

To answer the above, Rav Shlomah Zalman suggests that the mouth contains hevel
[heat] and moisture which may breakdown the ta’am in the fillings, or make the taste
in the filling pogum [damaged]. Rav Shlomah Zalman writes that this way of making
ta’am lifgam is better than eino ben yoimo in two ways. First of all, it creates a ta’am
lifgam much faster than 24 hours. Secondly, this ta’am lifgam is so damaging to the
taste that it is not even fit to be consumed at all. There are different levels of lifgam: an
eino ben yoimo is only slightly lifgam, but sometimes the food or beli’os are not just
lifgam but also nifsal, completely corroded, so totally ruined that it cannot even be
considered fit for human consumption (and maybe even for a dog). Rav Shlomah Zalman
writes that “It is known that regular pieces of food in one’s teeth become corroded and
ruined after a few hours; even more so the ta’am that is absorbed in the teeth
themselves.”

Rav Shlomah Zalman points out that this idea is beneficial to our purpose, as the Pri
Megodim writes that only a normal ta’am pogum can be re-awakened by a dovar chorif
into a ta’am lishvach, but if the ta’am is so pogum that it is not even fit for human
consumption, then even a dovar chorif cannot reignite the ta’am. Therefore, if this is
true that the heat in the mouth causes the beli’os in the fillings to be completely lifgam
in only a few hours, then one does not have to make sure not to eat something hot
within twenty-four hours before Pesach and need have no worry of dovar chorif.
Additionally, this type of lifgam also helps for the rest of the year in circumstances
where one desires to eat dairy foods but just ate meat, as the lifgam occurs rather

21
quickly. Furthermore, the Chok Yaakov (447:45) writes, that even the Rema who is strict
by nosein ta’am lifgam, will claim that there is no problem of chometz if the taste is
completely nifgam.

R’ Shlomah Zalman doesn’t seem entirely convinced

However, it seems that Rav Shlomah Zalman is not fully convinced of this heter, as he goes
on to advise one not to eat any hot or spicy chometz one day before Pesach in order that
the ta’am will definitely be eino ben yoimo. Once it is eino ben yoimo, we can rely on the
lenient opinion that eino ben yoimo is mutar on Pesach. The only other option is not
allowing one to eat hot or spicy foods on Pesach, and that will prevent simchas Yom Tov
which is akin to substantial loss.

Washing out ones mouth with hot water

Rav Shlomah Zalman then advises that one should drink water up to the maximum
temperature that one can handle. This is based on the concept kebolo kach polto, meaning
that one can kasher an item in the manner of how it absorbed the taste. Although the
Maharshal maintains that a dovar gush can have the status of a keli rishon and therefore
when one eats a dovar gush he has beli’os of a keli rishon in his mouth, and when one puts
hot water in his mouth it is only a keli sheini, many argue on the Maharshal and we can
follow the view of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 451:6) that one can kasher utensils
even according to its rov tashmisho [main usage]. If a vessel is normally boile’ah from a
keli sheini and once in a while it is boile’ah from a keli rishon; one can kasher it with a keli
sheini. Therefore, since a mouth is usually boile’ah from a keli sheini (even according to
the Maharshal), it can be kashered using a keli sheini.

[The Badei HaShulchan (96:1 s.v. yeish omrim) questions whether or not rov tashmisho
works for a dovar chorif and says one should be careful not to use it with a dovar chorif.
Either R’ Shlomah Zalman disagrees with the above, or he holds that if there is no other
option one doesn’t need to be machmir.]

Current day fillings and crowns

Rav Shlomah Zalman was talking about fillings in his day, which were basically metal.
However, there have been advances in dental materials that are used for crowns and
fillings which may warrant additional analysis of beli’os and kashering.

Nowadays, the majority of crowns are no longer metal, like gold and silver; rather, the
crowns are made out of ceramics. For approximately fifty years, the main crown was the
porcelain fused to metal crowns (PFM). These crowns had porcelain layers on top of
metal. At first glance, one may want to be strict with these crowns and rule that since it

22
has porcelain (and according to most poskim porcelain cannot be kashered) these
crowns cannot be kashered. Nonetheless, only the original PFM crowns in the early
1900’s had clay mixed in to them. Due to the dull appearance the clay presented in the
crown, the clay component was removed and only glass materials were used to make
the porcelain cover. Therefore, the kashering of these crowns should follow the
halachos of glass utensils. The absorption properties of glass are discussed amongst the
rishonim. The Mechaber maintains (Orach Chaim 451:26) that glass does not absorb at
all. Therefore, it doesn’t need any kashering. The Rema however, disagrees, and claims
that the prevailing Ashkenazic custom is to be strict with glass. The Ashkenazic custom
is that it has the status of earthenware; it absorbs and never releases its ta’am, and so
it can never be kashered. However, this machlokes is only relevant when glass is the
only material in the item. When the glass is only a covering over the item, the glass takes
on the properties of the substructure. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 451:23) writes
that in a case where earthenware is covered with glass, the item can never be kashered
as per the earthenware component underneath the glass. Furthermore, the Rema
(Orach Chaim 451:26) writes that a silver cup covered with glass cannot be kashered, as
per his own opinion about glass. However, the Vilna Gaon (Orach Chaim 451:23, 26) and
the Bi’ur Halachah (451:23) write that according to the Shulchan Aruch’s opinion, this
cup can (and must) be kashered in the same way as the metal underneath the crown,
despite being covered by glass.

However, in the last ten years or so there has been a further change: the crowns being
developed are entirely ceramic crowns. The basic elements of dental ceramics are made
of silicate, leucite, feldspar, and others which are glass-like and once again have no trace
of clay or earthenware. If this is the case, then perhaps dental porcelain and ceramic
crowns would have the status of glass. Therefore, Sephardim, who hold like the
Mechaber (Orach Chaim 451:26) and rule that glass does not need to be kashered,
should permit these crowns with simple washing. Ashkenazim, who hold like Rema, are
presented with an issue to this ruling. Fortunately, there is room to be lenient. First,
many hold that one must be strict only regarding chometz, not regarding other issurim.
Second, even in the context of chometz, the Rema (Darchei Moshe, Orach Chaim 451:19)
writes that we can be lenient bedieved.

With regard to dental fillings, there have been advancements in materials and
technology recently. During the time of Rav Shlomah Zalman, fillings were made of
silver, or amalgam in dental terms, and gold. Nowadays (since thirty years ago) there
are white fillings, or composites, instead of the earlier types of dental implants. At first
glance, it would appear that composite fillings would have the status of plastic, as they
are made out of inorganic polymers, much like plastic. However, a closer look may allow
us to establish composites as halachic equivalent to glass, rather than plastic.

23
Composites, in general terms, can be divided into two parts: the matrix and the filler.
The matrix is the frame which hardens and bonds to the tooth structure. The matrix is
filled up with a filler material, and the filler particles bind to the matrix. The matrix is
made out of polymers, or plastic, but the fillers are glass-like materials, like leucite,
quartz, or even actual glass. The majority of the composite is the filler, and the lesser
portion is the matrix. Perhaps one can say based on the principle of rov [majority], that
the classification and categorization of composite will follow glass, as the glassy filler is
the majority of the implant. If this is the case, white fillings will not pose any problems
for Sephardim, but Ashkenazim will have to utilize the kulos mentioned above.

However, perhaps we cannot follow rov, because the matrix could be a ma’amid
[something that is essential to the whole], without it, the material would fall apart and
fail to function properly, because the matrix is what binds the filling to the tooth.
Something which is ma’amid isn’t botul [considered null and void] even when it is a
minority component, but rather is considered the main part of the item. Therefore,
perhaps the implant must be viewed as a plastic, which, as explained previously, is
subject to a major debate among the poskim, and even the Sephardim would need to
rely on the leniencies mentioned earlier.

However, there is one relatively new filling material whose matrix component is made out
of glass, namely silicone dioxide. This material may be gaining popularity and is currently
being used in many dental offices. For Sephardim, this material would be beneficial, but
for the Ashkenazim the same leniencies as before would need to be utilized.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the new materials used in dental crowns, dentures, and dental fillings may
help alleviate the concerns of beli’os in the mouth due to the fact that the new fillings and
the new crowns may be viewed as glass. In that case, Sephardic Jews may be able to avoid
beli’os of crowns and fillings by always making sure that the fillings and crowns used are
all ceramic and the fillings are the composite fillings that are all glass based. For the
Ashkenazim, perhaps they can be lenient and follow the Mishnah Berurah that bedieved
(or in a sha’as hadechak, such as in our situation of dental implants), if rov tashmisho [the
majority of its usage] is with cold food and drink, then one does not have to kasher glass,
coupled with the opinion of the Taz, who holds that the bedieved of the Darchei Moshe
means that one does not have to kasher glass. In addition, since this case is a sha’as
hadechak, maybe Ashkenazim can rely on the Pri Chodosh, who holds like the Shulchan
Aruch, against the Rema, that glass does not absorb. At the very least, it could be another
snif for the Ashkenazim to be lenient, as perhaps these materials are glass and are not
able to absorb any taste.

24
Both Ashkenazim and Sephardim who are not diligent to make sure that everything
permanent in their mouth is glass, as well as for people who already have fillings and
crowns from previous generations of dentistry, would still need to rely on the approach
of Rav Shlomah Zalman that one should not eat hot food within twenty-four hours of
Pesach. Furthermore, if one must eat a dovar chorif on Pesach, then he or she would need
to rely on Rav Shlomah Zalman’s novel idea that saliva and heat corrode the beli’os of
chometz completely. Additionally, one should kasher his mouth the way that Rav Shlomah
Zalman suggested: one should drink water heated to the maximum temperature that one
can handle.

[The Teshuvah that we mentioned above from R’ Shlomah Zalman was sent to the Chazon
Ish and although the Chazon Ish never actually replied in writing to his letter, it is known
that he accepted Rav Shlomah Zalman’s ruling as halachah, and did not mandate any sort
of kashering for dentures nor crowns and implants! In fact, when later asked why he never
sent an official response, the Chazon Ish replied that “the author asked my opinion, but
after such a complete and articulate take on the situation, what can I possibly add?”
(sefer Shalmei Moed (pg. 134, Ch. 72, footnote 74).]

(Information for the above halachah write-up, especially information about current day
fillings has been taken from an article written by R’ Epraim Rudolph)

Seder night shiurim

Many of the mitzvos special to seder night involve eating and drinking, and is in fact one
of the only times a year when one can fulfill a mitzvah de’O’raisa by eating. These mitzvos
include, the daled koisos [four cups of wine], matzah, maror, korech and afikomen. An
important part of seder night is knowing how much we need to eat or drink for each of
these mitzvos, and the time frame in which we must eat or drink. Below we will try and
discuss the correct amount one has to eat for the above mentioned mitzvos, the time
frame involved and in particular how much a kezayis actually is.

An olive (kezayis) as half an egg?

The mitzvos of seder night that require eating all require that we eat the amount of a
kezayis.

The exception to this is karpas (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 573:6), which does not
require a kezayis because there is no obligation of halachic eating, but only to make a
change from the ordinary, prompting children to ask why this night is different. (One
should specifically eat less than a kezayis of karpas in order to avoid the need to recite
a berachah achronoh.)

25
The smallest amount of food that is considered eating in halachah is a kezayis (see Toras
Kohanim 12:2). A kezayis is a measure of volume, and is unrelated to weight (Rambam,
Pirush HaMishnayos, Taharos 3:4; Chazon Ish 39:17). The Mishnah states that it refers to
the size of an average olive (Keilim 17:8).

Determining the amount of a kezayis would appear to be fairly simple: It is the volume of
an average olive. However, from the rishonim it seems that it’s not as simple as we might
think.

The Gemara in Yoma (80a) writes that a person can swallow the volume of an egg at one
time. In addition to this, the Gemara elsewhere (Kerisus 14a) states that a person can
swallow up to two kezays

im at one time. Tosfos (Eruvin 80b; Yoma 80a) infers from this that the volume of an egg
is twice the volume of an olive, so that an olive – a kezayis – equals half an egg (see
also Magen Avraham 486).

Today’s olives are approximately one-ninth the volume of today’s eggs – far less than one-
half (see Sefer Kezayis p. 24). Since olives were clearly far bigger (at least relative to eggs)
in the times of Tosfos, it appears that (according to Tosfos) we cannot determine the size
of a kezayis using today’s olives as a measure – unless we assume that the halachic
amount decreases with the decline in the size of olives.

From Tosfos it’s clear that the size of the olives we have nowadays has declined from what
it originally used to be. According to the Rambam, however, there is no clear proof that
our olives are different from those of earlier times.

The Rambam does not explicitly discuss the size of a kezayis, but it can be inferred from
what he says in regards to the size of a halachic meal in regards to eruvin. The Rambam
(Hilchos Eruvin 1:9) writes, that the volume of bread for two meals is six eggs, which is
equivalent to the volume of eighteen dried figs. The volume of a dried fig is thus one third
of the volume of an egg.

We know from the Gemara elsewhere (Shabbos 91a) that that an olive is smaller than a
dried fig (this is clearly true for our olives). According to the Rambam, it thus follows that
a kezayis is less than one third of an egg.

In fact, according to the Rambam a kezayis might be far smaller than one third of an egg,
and this is what we would conclude based on today’s olives. However, out of doubt, the
Rambam’s opinion is generally referred to as being one third of the volume of an egg, and
this is the amount one must eat (according to the Rambam) to ensure that a kezayis is
consumed.

26
The great decline in the size of an egg

To determine the volume of an egg, the simplest way is to use the displacement method:
Place an egg into a full container of water, and measure the volume of water displaced.
This is in fact the method that the Shulchan Aruch recommends (Orach Chaim 456:1;
see Yoreh De’ah 324:1).

A second, more elaborate method is based on the relationship of an egg to a revi’is (a

halachic measure of volume specific to liquids). A revi’is is the volume of one and a half
eggs; in other words an egg is two-thirds the volume of a revi’is (Rambam, Hilchos
Mikvaos 6:13).

The Gemara in Pesochim (109a) states that a revi’is is the size of a container measuring
two fingerbreadths by two fingerbreadths by 2.7 fingerbreadths, where each
fingerbreadth is the width of an average person’s thumb measured at the joint or at the
widest part of the thumb near the joint (see Daas Torah, Treifos 38:115; Shu”t Igros
Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:136; Mishnah Berurah 11:19). Two-thirds of this volume is the
volume of an egg.

One great complication in the kezayis issue arose when the Tzlach (Pesochim 116b)
compared these two calculations. He figured the average thumb-width to be 2.55 cm (1
inch) and, using the above formula, the result came to approximately 120 cc (4.1 fluid oz.).
He also measured eggs using the water displacement method above, and found that they
measured slightly less than 58 cc (2 fluid oz.). In other words, the volume of actual eggs
was just under half the volume of the thumb-measurement of an egg!

The Tzlach therefore reasoned that one of two things must have happened. Either
people’s thumbs are larger than they had been in the time of the Gemara (so that his
actual egg measurement was correct while his thumb-measurement was too large), or
eggs grew smaller in size than they had been in the time of the Gemara (so that his thumb-
measurement was correct while his egg measurement was too small).

In deciding between these two options, the Tzlach makes the following assumption: “It is
well known that succeeding generations diminish, and do not increase.” It follows that the
change must be in the eggs. Thus he coins the famous expression niskatnu habaitzim [eggs
have decreased in size]. If the size of a thumb remained the same, the size of eggs
diminished by one-half since the time of the Gemara.

Accordingly, thumb measurements are the more accurate method for calculating the
true size of an egg, and all shiurim dependent on the size of eggs, including the revi’is (one
and a half eggs), the kebeitza (one egg), and the kezayis (one-half or one-third of an
egg), must be measured with thumb-measurements. Should they be measured with

27
present-day eggs, the volume must be doubled. For example, a revi’is, which the Gemara
states is the volume of 1.5 eggs, is actually the volume of three present-day eggs.

In fact, the Tashbatz (3:33) already preceded the Tzlach, and stated that thumb-
measurements are much larger than egg-measurements, so that “it is fitting to be
stringent concerning Torah mitzvos.”

Opposition to the decline of the size of an egg

Many poskim have disagreed with the Tzlach’s assertion. This clearly emerges from those
poskim who advise to measure the volume of an egg by displacement of today’s eggs
(Shulchan Aruch 456:1; Magen Avraham 210:2; Shulchan Aruch HaRav 456:1; see also
Aruch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 168:13 and Yoreh De’ah 324:5), and it is stated explicitly
by several poskim.

The Shu”t Teshuva Me’ahava (324) who was a talmid of the Tzlach argues that
the Tzlach used his own thumb, which was actually far larger than the average thumb, as
a measure. (Now, as well most people’s thumb measures about two centimeters.) This
resulted in an overly large thumb-measurement. This was also the opinion of Rav Chaim
No’eh. The Aruch HaShulchan (Yoreh De’ah 324:6) takes the opposite approach, namely
that the eggs in the Tzlach’s area were smaller than average.

Rav Dovid Feinstein (Haggadah Kol Dodi 2:5) suggests that the size of eggs remained
constant, while thumbs actually grew – contrary to the Tzlach’s assertion that “succeeding
generations diminish.” According to this approach, one may of course use the present-day
egg measurement, for it is the thumb-measurement that is now inaccurate. Rav Dovid
Feinstein does not reject the Tzlach, but only explains a possible rationale of those who
do.

Finally, some poskim write that even if eggs or olives diminished in size since the time of
the Gemara, this does not affect the shiur of a kebeitza or kezayis. This is because
amounts based on eggs or olives depend on the eggs or olives of each generation and are
not a fixed amount (Shu”t Beis Yitzchak, Yoreh Deah 2;133; Shu”t Chasam Sofer, Orach
Chaim 181; Shu”t Iggros Moshe, Yoreh De’ah 3:61 and Orach Chaim 1:136 and others).

According to this approach, one should use present-day eggs and olives to measure the
relevant shiur, even if the result does not concur with that of thumb-measurements. Rav
Chaim No’eh writes in many places that the common custom in Europe was to rely on
these amounts, and not to follow the stringency of the Tzlach (though the Steipler has
written that the custom was specifically to follow the Tzlach’s stringency).

28
On the other hand, some poskim agree with the Tzlach’s ruling (see Maaseh Rav 105 and
74; Rosh Efraim 3:16; Maharam Shik, Yoreh De’ah 199). As we will see below, many
contemporary poskim maintain that one must take his opinion into account, especially for
mitzvos that are de’O’raisa.

The contemporary psak

To summarize, two main issues must be resolved in determining the amount of a kezayis:
1) Whether a kezayis is one-half or one-third of an egg; 2) Whether a kezayis should be
measured with present-day eggs or with thumb-measurements.

Most poskim maintain that for mitzvos de’O’raisa, one should eat an amount equal to half
an egg (in line with Tosfos), whereas for a mitzvah derabonon one may eat an amount
equal to a third of an egg (see Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Aruch HaShulchan and Mishnah
Berurah, all 486:1).

The Mishnah Berurah adds that for a mitzvah derabonon that requires a berachah, such
as maror, one should be stringent and eat an amount equal to half an egg. Some (such as
the Mishnah Berurah and Aruch HaShulchan) add that where it is not difficult, one should
eat an amount equal to half an egg even for mitzvos derabonon.

As for using today’s eggs or thumb-measurements, the Mishnah Berurah rules that for
mitzvos de’O’raisa one should use the larger thumb-measurement sizes (the Tzlach’s
stringency), whereas for mitzvos derabonon one can rely on present-day eggs (486:1; Biur
Halachah 271:13).

The Chazon Ish (39:8 and 17), however, ruled that for all shiurim, including the kezayis,
one should follow the Tzlach. However, the Chazon Ish applied the ruling as stringency,
since in principle he maintained that the basic shiur depends on the average olive of each
generation (Shiurin shel Torah 11).

R’ Chaim Kanievsky shlit’a testifies that the Chazon Ish actually used this amount for
mitzvos derabonon, eating an amount of one-third of a present-day egg (which equals 17
cc – still considerably larger than a present-day olive; see letter printed in Mikraei Kodesh
(Harari), p. 572, concerning maror; see also Kezayis Hasholem, Chap. 11 ). However, for
a revi’is (the four cups) the Chazon Ish used the thumb-measurement volume.

Rav Chaim No’eh maintains that there is no discrepancy between the volume of a present-
day egg and that of thumb-measurements.

29
Actual shiurim

Based on the foregoing analysis, we know that the measures of an etzbah

[fingerbreadth], revi’is, kebeitzah and kezayis are all interrelated. We also know that an
amoh equals six tefochim (Eruvin 13b), which in turn equals twenty four etzba’os
(Bechoros 39b), so that even the amoh and tefach are interrelated with the other shiurim.

The Chazon Ish based his measurements on the amoh. He writes (Orach Chaim 39:8) that
the shiur of an amoh used in Europe was 22.8 inches (58 cm; note that this is considerably
longer than the length from a person’s elbow to the tip of his middle finger; see
Rashi, Kesubos 8b and Menachos 11a).

Based on an amoh of 58 cm, a revi’is will be 5.1 fluid oz. (150 cc; see Shiurin shel Torah,
Mitzvos 18). An egg without its shell is 3.0 fluid oz. (90 cc), and a kezayis is one-half or one-
third of this. The volume of the egg is approximately twice that of present-day eggs. From
this the Chazon Ish concluded that the halachah follows the stringency of the Tzlach.

However, the measures given by Rav Chaim No’eh were used for many centuries in
Sephardic communities (see Shu”t Ohr LeZion Vol. 3, no. 3, sec. 4; Yecheveh Daas 4:58),
and it was also the long-established minhag Yerusholayim (see Introduction to Shiurin shel
Torah; see Biur Halachah 271:13 concerning the custom outside Eretz Yisroel). When
the Chazon Ish introduced his shiurim (based on the Tzlach), Rav Chaim No’eh defended
the older custom with a series of books, as a result the shiurim became known as Rav
Chaim No’eh’s shiurim.

These shiurim were based on the revi’is, which the Rambam writes contains the volume
of water displaced by 27 Dirhams (Pirush HaMishnayos, Ediyos 1:2). The Dirham is an
Arabic coin which has been in use in Middle Eastern countries from the times of
the Geonim (the early middle ages), and which continues to be in use in some countries
today. The weight of the water displaced by one Dirham is 3.205 grams. A revi’is of water
(27 Dirhams) therefore weighs 86 grams, and its volume is 86 cc (2.9 fluid oz.).

A revi’is is therefore a volume of 86 cc (Shiurei Torah 3:6), so that the volume of the
various kebeitzas including the shell is 1.95 fluid oz. (57.6 cc) and without the shell 1.82
fluid oz. (53.8 cc). A half-egg kezayis is therefore 0.87 fluid oz. (25.6 cc; Shiurei Torah 3:12),
and third-of-an-egg kezayis is 0.58 fluid oz. (17.3 cc). Concerning matzah, Rav Chaim No’eh
advises that one should eat 0.97 fluid oz. (28.8 cc), to account for matzah particles that
remain stuck between the teeth.

These measures correspond well with the volume of present-day eggs.

30
Rav Dovid Feinstein calculated the measurements based on both present-day eggs and
thumb-measurements. His measures for actual eggs are very close to the shiurim given by
Rav Chaim No’eh. Based on fingerbreadths (which he based on Rav Moshe
Feinstein’s amoh), a revi’is was calculated as 4.42 fluid oz. (131cc), an egg as 2.94 fluid oz.
(87 cc), and one-half and one-third of an egg as 1.5 fluid oz. (44 cc) and 0.98 fluid oz. (29
cc), respectively.

Based on all the above the mitzvah measurements are:

Matzah

Matzah is a mitzvah de’O’raisa, and the Mishnah Berurah writes that one should therefore
follow the stringencies of both the Tzlach (thumb-measurements) and Tosfos (half an
egg). The largest thumb-measurement size for an egg is that of the Chazon Ish (3.38 fluid
oz. or 100 cc). A kezayis is half of this, which amounts to 1.69 fl. oz. (50 cc). Note that
according to the Chazon Ish, the shiur is one-third of an egg, which is 33cc. As noted above,
according to Rav Chaim No’eh the shiur is 0.87 fl. oz. (25.6 cc), though he advised eating
0.97 fluid oz. (28.8 cc) to account for matzah that might get stuck between teeth.

Although the Shulchan Aruch states that one who is eating from the three matzos on the
ke’ara [seder plate] should eat two kezaysim (475:1), for this halachah a kezayis of one-
third a present-day egg is sufficient, so that the large kezayis noted above is sufficient to
fulfill this, too.

Korech

Korech is a mitzvah derabonon, fulfilled by eating a kezayis of maror and a kezayis of

matzah together. One can therefore use the smaller shiur of a kezayis, meaning one third
of a present-day egg. The largest contemporary opinion for this shiur is that of Rav Chaim
No’eh, amounting to 0.65 fl. oz. (19.3 cc).

According to some poskim one should use half-egg kezaysim even for a mitzvah
derabonon, which will amount to 0.97 fl. oz. (28.8 cc).

Afikoman

One should preferably eat two kezaysim for afikoman (see Mishnah Berurah 477:1). Since
this is a mitzvah derabonon, one may use the small kezayis of one third of a present-day
egg, so that two such kezaysim total 1.28 fl. oz. (37.8 cc). According to the basic halachah,
one need only eat one kezayis (Shulchan Aruch 477:1): 0.65 fluid ounces (19.3 cc).

31
Maror

The basic shiur is equivalent to that of korech. However, the Mishnah Berurah maintains
(as noted above) that because a berachah is recited, one should use a half-egg kezayis of
0.97 fl. oz. (28.8 cc).

Note that the easiest way to actually measure the matzah and other shiurim is by weight.
For hand matzah, the largest shiur is approximately 29g of matzah, and the smallest shiur
is 11.2g. For machine matzah (which has a different density) the amounts are 31.0g and
12.0g, respectively (amounts taken from Moznei Tzedek).

Four cups

The Mishnah Berurah (Biur Halachah 271:13) rules that because the mitzvah of four cups
of wine is derabonon, one can rely on the smaller shiur, which amounts to 86cc. However,
when Pesach falls on Shabbos (as this year), the first of the four cups is also used for
kiddush, which is a mitzvah de’O’raisa. The Mishnah Berurah rules that this cup therefore
requires the larger volume 5.1 fluid oz. (150 cc).

According to the Chazon Ish, one should use this larger volume for all cups.

[I have adapted the above from a halachah write-up from R’ Yehoshua Pfeffer, please
double check with a Rov before relying on the above measurements.]

Suffering in order to perform a mitzvah

We generally look at mitzvos as being a harmonious part of Jewish life. Rather than
running contrary to the human condition, mitzvos are part and parcel of the human
condition, and they in fact serve to raise our human interactions – with the world, with
others, and with ourselves – to a higher level.

Yet, there are circumstances in which mitzvos make demands of us that are not pleasant.
While there is no mitzvah that is unpleasant in and of itself – the pasuk testifies that the
ways of Torah are: ‫ דרכיה דרכי נועם‬- “ways of pleasantness” (Mishlei 3:7) – there are
various situations in which upkeep of mitzvos can involve pain on a personal level.

Is one obligated to keep a mitzvah even when the performance involves pain and
discomfort? Is one obligated to undergo physical damage or illness for the sake of
performing a mitzvah? One isn’t obligated to give up his life for the sake of keeping a
mitzvah (except for three), is one obligated to give up his health?

32
Long hangovers from the daled koisos [four cups]

The Gemara in Nedorim (49b) tells us that Rabbi Yehudah used to suffer from grievous
headaches after drinking the four cups of wine on Pesach. His head would hurt from
Pesach until Shavuos. Based on the above Gemara, the Rashba (1:238) rules that even
somebody who hates wine, or for whom wine is physically damaging, must nonetheless
drink the four cups of wine.

The Rashba also cites the Yerushalmi (Pesochim 10:1) that Rabbi Yonah, like Rabbi
Yehudah, would suffer from severe headaches from Pesach until Shavuos on account of
the four cups of wine.

Based on the above, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 472:10) rules: ‫מי שאינו שותה יין‬
‫ מפני שמזיקו או שונאו צריך לדחוק עצמו ולשתות לקיים מצות ארבע כוסות‬- “Somebody who
desists from wine because it damages him or because he detests it, must nonetheless
force himself to drink, in order to perform the mitzvah of the four cups.”

The Shulchan Aruch does not expound on the halachah, and doesn’t discuss the degree of
physical damage a person must be ready to incur for the sake of the mitzvah. The Mishnah
Berurah (35) does address this question, and writes that a person must drink even though
the wine distresses him and causes him pain, but the obligation does not include actually
becoming ill. The Shaar HaTziyon (52) adds: ‫ דאין זה דרך חירות‬- “For this is not the way of
freedom.”

This comment implies that for most mitzvos, since they are unrelated to the “way of
freedom,” the obligation to perform the mitzvah applies even if as a result the person will
fall ill. The four cups, it appears, is an exception to the general rule.

Getting sick on maror

The Shu”t Besamim Rosh (94) discusses the question of someone who is not feeling so well
and by eating maror he will only feel worse. According to the Besamim Rosh, there is no
obligation to eat maror under these circumstances, for the following two reasons:

1) Concerning the mitzvah of succah the Gemara writes “the sick and their care-givers are
exempt”. The Besomim Rosh maintains, that this exemption applies not only to the
mitzvah of succah but to all mitzvos. If a person will become sick through performing a
mitzvah, he is not obligated to do it. The Torah, he explains, is given to us for life, and not
for becoming sick.

2) There is a mitzvah to look after one’s health, and every action we take to guard our
health is considered a mitzvah. Therefore, because ‫ עוסק במצוה פטור מין המצוה‬-

33
“somebody who is busy with a mitzvah is exempt from a [different] mitzvah,” it follows
that we are always exempt from those mitzvos that threaten to damage our health.

The Shu”t Binyan Shlomah (47) argues on the above, stating that the exemption
mentioned in Succah is in fact specific to the mitzvah of succah (as noted by Tosfos). He
further explains, that the exemption from mitzvos for somebody who is performing a
mitzvah applies specifically to somebody who is actively involved in a mitzvah and
therefore cannot perform the other mitzvah. A sick person himself is surely not actively
involved in a mitzvah, and (by contrast with his care-givers) he is certainly obligated in
those mitzvos that he is able to perform.

The Binyan Shlomah proceeds to agree that there is no requirement to perform a mitzvah
in a case where a person feels it will make him more ill, because sickness is worth more to
people than money. He adds that if someone who is ill feels that performing the mitzvah
won’t effect him and the doctors say it will, one should listen to the doctors.

We know that the obligation to perform Torah mitzvos does not require an expenditure
of more than a fifth of a person’s money (Orach Chaim 656:1). If there is no obligation to
spend more than one fifth of one’s wealth for the sake of performing a mitzvah, then one
need not perform a mitzvah if he will suffer physical damage since physical health is worth
more than money.

The Binyan Shlomah thus extends the exemption, based on financial considerations, to a
general exemption from mitzvos that are liable to cause a person illness.

The opinion of the Mishnah Berurah

The Mishnah Berurah (473:43) also rules that a sick person who is unable to eat maror due
to health considerations is exempt from the mitzvah, and should eat only a little to “recall”
the mitzvah. (He should not recite a berachah over this maror.)

Even where the maror will not cause actual physical damage, but only cause a person to
suffer, the Mishnah Berurah (Shaar HaTziyon 61) implies that there is no full obligation to
perform the mitzvah, and only that: ‫ראוי לו לדחוק עצמו בכל יכלתו אף שקשה לו כדי לקים מצות‬
‫ חז״ל‬- “it is proper for a person to strain himself with all his strength to perform the
mitzvah of Chazal.”

This ruling appears to contradict the above ruling concerning the four cups of wine, where
it was implied that for all other mitzvos the obligation applies even when performing the
mitzvah threatens to cause a person to be sick, and only by the four cups of wine is one
exempt because it is not “the way of freedom.”

34
It is possible, however, that the mitzvah of the four cups is different from other mitzvos,
because there is an obligation to perform the mitzvah even if this requires a person to sell
his clothes (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 472:13). This special obligation connected with
the four cups sets it aside from other mitzvos, from which a person without means is
exempt, and for which a risk of illness is likewise sufficient to exempt a person from the
mitzvah. That is why perhaps, the Mishnah Berurah finds it necessary to invoke the reason
that it is not “the way of freedom” in order to free a person who is liable to take ill from
the mitzvah to drink four cups.

In contrast to the above opinions, the Shu”t Maharam Shik (260) writes, that a person is
only exempt from eating maror if doing so involves danger of death; danger of sickness is
not sufficient to exempt a person from the mitzvah.

Mitzvos derabonon

With regard to mitzvos derabonon, we find a Gemara in Kesubos (60a) which states, that
somebody who is in great pain may suckle directly from a goat on Shabbos (the milk is a
kind of medicine for the ailment), in spite of the prohibition of mefareik (a toldoh of dosh-
threshing) that this involves.

The Gemara explains that feeding directly from a goat is not the ordinary way of milking
it, and therefore the prohibition is only rabbinic in nature – and Chazal didn’t impose a
prohibition where there is pain.

Since we find that Chazal didn’t enact certain issuray derabonon under circumstances of
suffering/illness, it should follow that a person is exempt from mitzvos derabonon in
similar circumstances. Why then do we find a discussion, as presented above, of
performing mitzvos derabonon where the threat of illness is present?

The answer to this can be found in the Beis Yosef (Yoreh De’ah 123:2), who writes that
regular issuray derabonon are not waived in the face of pain and illness, such as the
prohibition of stam yeinom [non-Jewish wine] which is forbidden even to the sick. It
therefore appears that we cannot learn a general principle of exempting somebody in
danger of illness or pain from the case of feeding from a goat, because that exemption is
specific to the case.

The Shu”t Chavas Yoir (no. 164) further asserts that the exemption cannot be applied
generally since it applies only to severe suffering, and not to regular pain or sickness.

What comes out from the above is, it is not so simple to exempt one from doing a mitzvah
under circumstances of potential suffering or illness, as noted above.

35
Endangering a limb in order to perform a mitzvah

The Gemara in Yevamos (72a) writes that according to Rabbi Yehudah, a moshuch is
exempt from bris milah, because of the concern that he will be injured and become a korus
shifcha [unable to have children] – though this does not involve any danger of death.

This indicates that danger to a limb is sufficient to exempt a person from performance of
a mitzvah de’O’raisa (unless we say that danger of becoming a korus shifcha is more
severe than danger to a regular limb).

The above supports to some degree the position of Shu”t Binyan Shlomah (as mentioned
above) that a person is not obligated to place himself into danger of illness even for a
mitzvah de’O’raisa. This is also the opinion of the Birkay Yosef (640:5).

However, there is room to make a distinction between danger of regular illness and the
danger of losing a limb. This difference is raised by the Shach (Yoreh De’ah 157:3), who
raises a possibility that even for a lav [negative Torah commandment], danger of losing a
limb is sufficient to waive the prohibition – and leans in practice towards leniency. This
leniency does not apply to danger of illness.

It is also possible that the case of bris milah is different because one who renders someone
a korus shifcha violates an issur de’O’raisa. Therefore, the reason not to perform a bris on
him is not due to physical danger but to the threat of a Torah violation.

Crippled for life or bris milah?

The Avnei Nezer (Yoreh De’ah 321) was consulted concerning a child who was born with a
crooked leg. The expert physicians advised that the leg be straightened out immediately,
while the bones were still soft and flexible, and that the procedure be performed before
the eighth day of his life. It was clear that, should the procedure be performed, the infant
would not be able to undergo bris milah on the eighth day.

Addressing the question of whether the procedure is permitted or not, the Avnei Nezer
explained that it is permitted to perform it, relying on the fact – as noted above – that one
need not spend more than a fifth of one’s wealth to perform Torah mitzvos. If there is no
obligation to spend more than one fifth of one’s money on a mitzvah, it follows that there
is no obligation for a person to render himself a cripple for the sake of performing a
mitzvah, for physical wholeness is worth more than a fifth of one’s assets.

But like the cases above, the case of the Avnei Nezer addresses a risk of permanent
physical damage, which is worse than illness that doesn’t involve permanent damage.

36
Therefore, although it appears clear that one does not have to endanger a limb in order
to perform a mitzvah, the question of endangering one’s health for the sake of a mitzvah
remains a matter of dispute among the poskim.

As a sort of compromise, the Eshel Avraham (Orach Chaim 656:1) suggests that a person
consider whether he would be prepared to part with a fifth of his wealth in order to avoid
the illness or suffering that he is threatened with. If he is prepared to pay one fifth of his
wealth to avoid it, he is exempt from the mitzvah. But if he is not prepared to lay out so
much, he will be obligated in the mitzvah.

Understanding the minhag of gebrokts

A very common Pesach related question is: “Do you eat gebrokt?” “gebrokt” is the Yiddish
term referring to something “broken apart” – in this case, matzah. (In Hebrew, this
practice is referred to more accurately as “sheruyah” – “soaked.”) Many communities
refrain from eating matzah or matzah products that have come in contact with liquids on
Pesach. There are varying levels of stringencies concerning utensils that have come in
contact with these foods, and regarding how far one has to go in order to avoid
eating gebrokts. Iy’H we will discuss this below.

The minhag predates chasidus

Although the minhag of not eating gebrokt is predominantly a chasidish one, it actually
has its roots in sources that predate chasidus. One of the earliest sources is the Shiyorei
Knesses HaGedolah, authored by a seventeenth century posek, which forbids the use of
matzah meal in cooking because of an incident that occurred. Apparently, a particular
woman saw the wife of a talmid chocham prepare a dish using matzah meal and
mistakenly thought that it was regular flour. She subsequently used regular flour for
cooking and it became chometz. In order to prevent this from reoccurring, the Shiyorei
Knesses HaGedolah decreed that one may not use matzah meal (Sha’arei Teshuvah 460:2).

However, the Pri Chodosh (461:2) argues at length against this contention and maintains
that one may not institute new decrees unless there is a basis in the Gemara or rishonim.
Furthermore, we need not be concerned if one person makes a mistake.

Even though these two achronim argue whether one may or may not institute a new
decree in this situation, there is actually a rishon, the Ra’avan, who sides with the stricter
opinion. He mentions this incidentally while explaining the reason why some have
a minhag not to soak matzah in their soup on the first night of Pesach. Although many
thought the reason for this was so that the matzah should not turn into chometz,
the Ra’avan writes that this is incorrect. The correct reason is so that the taste of the
matzah will remain in one’s mouth the entire night and if the matzah is soaked it loses the

37
matzah taste. He concludes by saying that it is a good idea not make “farfel” from matzah
meal in order that people should not come to confuse matzah meal with flour (Ra’avan,
Pesochim 162a). The commentary to the Ra’avan, Even Shlomoh (36), points out, that
the Sha’arei Teshuvah and other achronim who discuss this issue apparently did not see
the opinion of the Ra’avan.

Another rishon, the Ra’avyah, also points out that there are those who are strict not to
use matzah meal out of concern that one might come to confuse it with flour. However,
he concludes by saying that this is a stringency for a ba’al nefesh [a very conscientious
person] (Pesochim 475).

Gebrokt on seder night

As an aside, it is interesting to note that this opinion of the Ra’avan regarding

eating gebrokt on the first night of Pesach is in concurrence with a tradition that comes
from Rav Chaim Volozhiner and Rav Chaim Brisker. They were strict and did not eat
gebrokt on the first night of Pesach, although they would do so the rest of Pesach, because
of the Rambam’s opinion that matzah on the first day of Pesach must be “lechem oini” –
poor bread. Matzah that has been mixed with other ingredients and cooked loses the
status of lechem oini. Therefore, in their opinion, by eating gebrokt on the first day as
opposed to regular matzah, one is missing the opportunity to eat lechem oini (Shu’t
Teshuvos v’Hanhagos 2:203).

A source from the Gemara

The Gemara in Pesochim (40b) relates that Rav Pappa permitted the bakers in the home
of the Reish Gelusa to line the pots with “chasisi” on Pesach. One of the rishonim (Rif)
explains that “chasisi” is matzah meal cooked in water.

At this point, the Gemara cites two versions of Rava’s reaction to Rav Pappa’s leniency:

1) He exclaimed: “Is it possible that someone should permit this where there are
servants!?”. In other words, since there are servants in the household of Reish Gelusa, and
it was common for them to be lax in mitzvah observance, it was unadvisable to permit
them to be lenient in this regard, as they might come to use regular flour (Rashi). 2) Rava
did not take issue with Rav Pappa’s ruling, rather he himself lined the pots with chasisi.

There are two approaches in the rishonim how to understand the two versions of Rava’s
reaction:

1) In the first version Rava clearly is disagreeing with Rav Pappa’s contention and feels that
one may not be lenient where there is concern that people will be even more lenient.

38
However, according to the second version, there is no concern that anyone will confuse
matzah meal and flour, and for this reason, Rava used the matzah meal mixture in order
to line the pots. This approach is followed by the majority of rishonim (Rif, Rosh, Rambam)
and the Shulchan Aruch and the halachah is that we are unconcerned that some might
confuse matzah meal with flour (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 463:3).

2) The minority of rishonim (Tur 463) hold that the two versions of Rava’s reaction do not
dispute each other. Rather, Rava maintains that if there is a concern that others will come
to confuse matzah meal with flour, one is forbidden to use the matzah meal. This is why
he took issue with Rav Pappa. This is his position even in the second version, and the only
reason he allowed himself to use matzah meal is because he knew that he would not
confuse it with flour. This approach is not the accepted halachah. However, there is an
opinion that this minority view is the basis for the stringency of not eating gebrokt.
According to this approach, since there is concern that one will confuse matzah meal with
flour, matzah meal should not be used for cooking (Chochmas Shlomah 463).

The concern of the sources that we have quoted until now was that one might come to
confuse matzah meal with flour and eat actual chometz on Pesach. In other words, there
is no actual concern that cooking matzah or matzah meal will create chometz. Rather, the
issue is whether mistakes will result from eating gebrokt.

A different concern

However, there are other sources that raise a different issue with eating gebrokt. Namely,
when the water and flour are mixed together to form the dough, perhaps not all of the
flour was mixed sufficiently and therefore didn’t become dough. This flour remains on the
surface of the dough throughout the baking process and when it later comes in contact
with water it becomes chometz. Although most rishonim hold that roasted flour cannot
become chometz and any flour on the surface of the matzah will be roasted during the
baking process, nevertheless, there is still concern that there may be flour inside the
matzah which does not become fully roasted, since it is not exposed to the fire (Machatzis
HaShekel 498:1).

Gebrokt takes off

All that has been quoted until now are sources that predate chasidus, and since these
were the minority opinion, people who refrained from eating gebrokt were few and far
between. All of that changed when Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the Ba’al HaTanya and
Shulchan Aruch HaRav, wrote a Teshuvah about gebrokt. Approximately two hundred
years ago, Rav Shneur Zalman penned a Teshuvah that advocated the chumrah of not

39
eating gebrokt and from that point on this minhag became one of the defining issues
of chasidus.

Rav Shneur Zalman’s main contention is that it is possible to see flour either on or inside
the matzah that was not kneaded properly into the dough. Although flour on the surface
of the matzah would be roasted by the fire and could no longer become chametz, this is
not the case with flour inside the matzah.

Anticipating the question as to why poskim in earlier generations did not point out this
problem, he writes that this is only an issue “with dry dough that does not knead well. In
earlier generations they would spend a long time kneading and rolling until it was kneaded
properly.” Apparently, before Rav Shneur Zalman’s time, matzah dough was much moister
and took longer to knead. He continues that this was true “until about twenty years ago
when a carefulness spread among Jews to greatly hasten the kneading,” by decreasing the
amount of water in the dough, making the dough drier and harder. Unfortunately, this
brought about the problem that “they do not knead it properly. Therefore, a small amount
of flour can be found in the matzos of dry dough, as can be readily seen by those who are
really careful.”

It is interesting to note that Rav Shneur Zalman’s main concern with gebrokt is allowing
plain matzah to come in contact with liquids. This is because the flour in the matzah would
then become chometz. However, with regards to kneidlach, where the matzah is crushed
into powder and mixed with other ingredients, he writes that there is more room to be
lenient. However, Rav Shneur Zalman concludes with the opinion of the Arizal that one
should be stringent with all of the chumros of Pesach.

Many poskim are lenient

On the other hand, we find many poskim who were unconcerned about the stringent
opinions and permitted the consumption of gebrokt. The Sha’arei Teshuvah (460:2)
maintains that the basis for the chumrah was that at one time matzos were made very
thick and the dough inside was not kneaded or baked well. Although he points out that
every rov should supervise the matzah baking in his town to ensure that this does not
occur, he says, nowadays when matzos are made very thin, there is no concern and one
does not need to presume that there is anything prohibited unless he knows otherwise.
He cites the She’ailas Yaavetz who quotes his father, the Chacham Tzvi, that one should
not refrain from simchas Yom Tov because of far-fetched concerns and that he saw
“chasidei olam” – exceedingly righteous people, who ate soaked matzos. Similarly,
the Vilna Gaon is quoted as permitting soaked matzos (Ma’aseh Rav).

40
The Mishnah Berurah (458:4) quotes the Sha’arei Teshuvah that according to the basic
halachah one is allowed to eat gebrokt, especially since our matzos are very thin.
However, one should not spurn those who are stringent.

The Chasam Sofer’s minhag

There seems to be a contradiction as to what the Chasam Sofer’s minhag was in regards
to eating gebrokt. On the one hand, he writes in a Teshuvah (Yoreh Deah 222) that it is a
“mitzvah and prishus” not to eat soaked matzah on Pesach. This would indicate that he
did not eat gebrokt. On the other hand, we find in the Minhogei Chasam Sofer (10:25) that
he ate kneidlach.

It is possible that the Chasam Sofer held that there is room to be stringent according to
halachah, but when it came to his minhogim, he did not wish to deviate from how his
teacher, Rav Nosson Adler, conducted himself. Therefore, in his Teshuvah he wrote what
he held, while in his personal conduct he acted differently. Since he held that it was only
a chumrah, he did not accept it upon himself as it meant changing a minhag (See Shu”t
Shevet Sofer, Orach Chaim 27; Sefer Moadim L’Simcha, vol. V, pg. 442.).

Water versus other liquids

We have cited two reasons for the stringency of not eating gebrokt: 1) the possibility of
confusing matzah meal with flour and 2) the chance of flour remaining on the matzah,
which could become chometz when coming into contact with water. However, it seems
from the poskim that discuss the issue of gebrokt, that the second reason is the primary
concern of those that advocate this minhag.

One of these issues is which types of liquids one must prevent from coming into contact
with the matzos. This requires an introduction. The halachah is that the five grains: wheat,
barley, spelt, rye and oats, and their flours can only become chometz if they come into
contact with water. If they come into contact with “mei peiros,” no chimutz, or
fermentation, takes place and no chometz is created. What are mei peiros? This term
literally means “fruit juice,” but it includes any liquid that is not water or water-based.
Therefore, oil, honey, eggs, milk, butter, cheese, wine, and pure fruit juices are considered
mei peiros (Orach Chaim 462 and Mishnah Berurah). However, water with flavorings
added, such as lemonade, tea and coffee is considered to be water. (Although wine has
water in it, since the water changed into wine through fermentation, it loses the status of
water.)

According to this, even according to those who are stringent regarding gebrokt, it should
be permissible to allow matzah to come into contact with mei peiros. This is because even
if there would be some flour left on the matzah, the subsequent exposure to mei

41
peiros will not cause it to become chometz. Indeed, Rav Shneur Zalman in his Teshuvah
and many are accustomed to allow mei peiros to come into contact with the matzah
although they would not allow water. (See also Sha’arei Teshuvah 460:2, Eishel
Avraham [Butchach] 462 and Mikra’ei Kodesh 15 who rule leniently regarding matzos and
mei peiros.)

There are others however, who are stringent and do not even allow mei peiros to come
into contact with the matzah. The reason for this requires another introduction. Although,
as we mentioned, only water can bring about fermentation and mei peiros cannot, this is
only true regarding pure mei peiros. If the mei peiros are mixed with water, or if the five
types of grain or their flours come into contact with both water and mei peiros, not only
will fermentation take place, but we are concerned that it will occur at a faster rate than
a mixture of plain water and flour.

This being the case, there is concern that, assuming there is some flour on the matzah,
this flour already came into contact with the water that was in the dough and was just not
sufficiently kneaded. When the flour subsequently comes into contact with the mei peiros,
it is possible that the combination of earlier exposure to water and the current contact
with mei peiros will cause the flour to become chometz (Sefer Ma’adanei Shmuel [by the
author of Minchas Shabbos] 110, based on Pri Megadim 467, Dinim Mechudashim 1 at the
end of Mishbetzos Zahov).

Chalitah

Some people are lenient with gebrokts if the flour has undergone “chalitah”. Although, as
we mentioned, when water comes in contact with the five grains or their flours it is
possible for them to become chometz, this is not always the case. The Gemara in
Pesochim (37b) tells us that if one were to do chalitah, the resulting product does not
become chometz. Chalitah is placing grain or flour into boiling water. Once it is placed into
boiling water, the grain or flour cooks instantly and can no longer become chometz. This
is not the case if the water has not yet boiled, for the grain would become chometz before
it reaches the boiling point. Once boiled, the grain and flour cannot become chometz even
if they were to be subsequently mixed with water, kneaded into a dough and baked.

Although this would seem to be a great way of avoiding chometz issues on Pesach, it is not
practical. This is because the Geonim forbade the use of this method since we are no
longer proficient in the procedure of chalitah (Rav Hai Gaon and Rav Sherira Gaon, quoted
in Rif).

Some have the minhag to do chalitah when it comes to gebrokt. For example, when
preparing kneidlach, they will mix matzah meal with mei peiros, such as eggs, and make

42
sure to put the mixture into a pot that has come to a rolling boil. By following this
procedure, they reason that there is no concern of any possible flour becoming chometz.
Even though we do not know the correct method of chalitah, but since gebrokt is only
a chumrah, such people hold that one can rely on this procedure (Chazon Ish, quoted
in Orchos Rabbeinu, vol. II, pg. 52). It is interesting to note that some time during Pesach
the Maggid of Koznitz would eat matzah boiled in a liquid in order to show that those who
ate gebrokt were not doing anything wrong (Hagodas Avodas Yisroel HaSholem, pg. 283).

Achron Shel Pesach

Although there are those who refrain from eating gebrokt the entire seven/eight days of
Pesach, there is a widely accepted minhag to be lenient on Achron Shel Pesach (in Chutz
La’aretz when Pesach is kept for eight days). On the surface this seems odd. If one does
not eat gebrokt out of concern that some flour might become chometz, why should one
be lenient on the eighth day when chometz is still forbidden?

The mechaber of the Bnei Yissoschar, Rav Tzvi Elimelech m’Dinov, contends that the issue
of gebrokt is a chumrah and not basic halachah. Additionally, the last day of Pesach (in
Chutz La’aretz) is derabonon. If one were to keep all of the Pesach stringencies even on
the eighth day, he would be indicating that these are not chumros, but rather basic
halachah and there is a real concern of chometz. This would imply that those who do
eat gebrokt the entire week of Pesach are eating chometz, chas vesholam. Therefore, the
stringencies are relaxed on the last day (Sefer Derech Pikudecha, Lo Saseh 12).

Cooking gebrokt in advance for Achron Shel Pesach

In a year such as this year, when Achron Shel Pesach falls on Shabbos, the Chazon Ish
(Orach Chaim 49:16) writes, that one can cook gebrokt on Friday in preparation for
Shabbos, even though one who is noheg not to eat gebrokt can’t eat it until Shabbos.

Even though to one who is noheg not to eat gebrokt the food should be considered
muktzeh and similarly there should be a problem of cooking on Yom Tov for Shabbos (as
one is only allowed to cook on Yom Tov something that is mutar for Yom Tov), since the
minhag of not eating gebrokt is only a minhag and not an issur, and many people aren’t
worried about it, it’s not considered muktzeh and there is no problem of cooking on Yom
Tov for Shabbos.

[The shailah of cooking gebrokt for Achron Shel Pesach is normally only nogea in Chutz
La’aretz where the eighth day of Pesach is derabonon, this year however, it’s nogea even
in Eretz Yisroel. Since Pesach ends on Friday, one isn’t able to eat chometz until after

43
Shabbos (practically and according to most poskim halachically see pg. 53), however, since
it is no longer Pesach one can be lenient with gebrokt.]

Keilim [utensils]

There are different minhogim regarding how careful one should be to ensure that liquid
does not come in contact with his matzah. These minhogim range from the very strict to
the very lenient. Some are very machmir and do not allow matzos on the table for this
reason. Others allow matzos on the table but they cover them. And some, while they
would not actively place matzah into liquid, are unconcerned if some matzah crumbs get
wet.

Additionally, there are varying minhogim regarding the use of utensils that came in
contact with gebrokt. While some will use dishes that were used with gebrokt, others have
separate utensils for situations when gebrokt is called for, i.e., for children, or on the
eighth day of Pesach. Others have the custom of kashering all utensils that were used
for gebrokt before using them again.

What is interesting to note is, that even those who are relatively strict and would not use
dishes or pots that came into contact with gebrokt, do not hesitate to use the dishes again
the following Pesach. The reason for this is based on a Teshuvah from the Chacham
Tzvi (75). Someone inadvertently cooked food on Pesach in a clean pot that had been used
two years beforehand for chometz. At first glance, the food should be forbidden since the
taste of the chometz in the pot was expelled into the food during cooking. However,
the Chacham Tzvi contends, that after a period of twelve months any flavour in the pot
has totally dissipated.

Although the consensus of the poskim is not to rely on this opinion when it comes to using
actual chometz utensils on Pesach when they have not been used for a year, nevertheless,
many are lenient with utensils used for gebrokt. However, some maintain that since there
are actually twelve months minus eight days between one Pesach and the next, one may
not use utensils for gebrokt on the last day of Pesach unless the coming year will be a leap
year (like it was last year), thereby adding a month to the year.

Keeping things in perspective

Although the minhag of refraining from eating gebrokt is well founded in halachic
sources, one must take care not to become too over zealous when it comes to the minhag
and thereby ignore the basic halachah. There is a mitzvas aseh for every adult to eat
a kezayis of matzah on the first night of Pesach. For some, especially older people, it is
difficult to eat the hard, dry matzah. The solution to this problem is to soak the matzah,

44
thereby softening it and making it easier to swallow (Shulchan Aruch 461:4; Mishnah
Berurah 17). It goes without saying that this halachah overrides the chumrah of not
eating gebrokt (Shu”t Rivavos Efraim, vol. II, 129:14).

Washing the dishes

This tendency to allow minhag to overrule halachah is also found when washing dishes on
Shabbos and Yom Tov during Pesach. Some people are careful to wash their dishes after
the Shabbos or Yom Tov meals even when they will not be needed again that day. They
do so out of concern that there are matzah crumbs on the dishes and if left they will
become chometz.

In Shulchan Aruch the halachah is clear: one is only allowed to wash dishes on Shabbos or
Yom Tov if there is reason to believe that they will be needed again on that day. Otherwise,
the washing is considered “hachonah” – preparation for after Shabbos (Orach
Chaim 323:6). The minhag of gebrokt cannot push aside this halachah.

Conclusion

Let us conclude with the words of the Sha’arei Teshuvah (460:2): Both those who are
stringent and those who are lenient are acting lesheim Shomayim. Those who are
stringent intend to avoid the slightest suspicion of the smallest amount of chometz, while
those who are lenient do so because of simchas Yom Tov, as plain, dry matzah is
unappealing. Regarding both of these groups whose intention is lesheim Shomayim, I
apply the pasuk, ‫ ועמך כולם צדיקים‬- ‘and Your people are all righteous.’”

The nature of the mitzvah of charoses

Mishnah and Gemara

The Mishnah in Pesochim (114a) brings a machlokes between the Chachomim and R’
Elozor ben Tzodok as to whether charoses constitutes a mitzvah. The Mishnah says: ‫הביאו‬
‫“ – לפניו מצה וחזרת אע״פ שאין חרוסת מצוה ר״א בן צדוק אומר מצוה‬then they bring in front of
him matzah and charoses, even though charoses isn’t a mitzvah. R’ Elozor ben Tzodok
says, it is a mitzvah”. The Gemara explains both opinions recorded in the Mishnah. In the
Chachomim the Gemara explains, that they believe that charoses merely serves to blunt
the bitter taste of the maror. The Gemara then presents two explanations of R’ Elozor ben
Tzodok’s opinion. One explanation is that the charoses serves to remind us of the mortar
used by our ancestors in Mitzrayim to build for Pharaoh when they were slaves. A second
explanation is that the charoses serves to remind us of the tapuchim [apple trees] in
Mitzrayim. Both Rashi and the Rashbam explain that the Jewish women in Mitzrayim

45
would painlessly and quietly give birth beneath the apple trees so that the Mitzriyim
would not discover that a Jewish male was born.

The second explanation in the Gemara is the source for the minhag amongst Ashkenazic
Jewry to use apples for charoses. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (cited in Nefesh HaRav pg.
209-210) however, argues that the word tapuach refers to a citrus fruit such as an esrog
(see Tosfos, Taanis 29b s.v. Shel Tapuchim, which supports such an argument). Based on
this point, Rav Hershel Schachter places a citrus fruit in his charoses instead of apples. This
practice is supported by the Gemara (Pesochim 116a), which mentions that since charoses
serves as a reminder of the tapuach, the charoses should be acidic. Citrus fruits are
distinctively acidic but apples are not.

The Gemara continues and teaches that we should add spices to the charoses to remind
us of the straw in Mitzrayim. Before spices are ground up, they are long and stringy and
thus resemble straw. The straw that we remember likely refers to the decree made by
Pharaoh that we must gather our own straw for building (Shemos 5:7). The Gemara
concludes with a quote from R’ Elozor ben Tzodok. He notes the practice of the merchants
of Yerusholayim, who would announce before Pesach, “Come and get spices for the sake
of the mitzvah.”

Rishonim – Tosfos and the Rambam

Tosfos notes that the practice of the merchants seems to indicate that the halachah is in
accordance with R’ Elozor ben Tzodok. The merchants would have been corrected by one
of many talmiday chachomim in Yerusholayim if their announcements were halachically
inaccurate. Tosfos also cites the piyut of Rav Yosef Tuv Elem, which states that charoses
constitutes a mitzvah in accordance with R’ Elozor ben Tzodok's view.

Another Tosfos cites some additional sources that serve as the basis for our practice
regarding the process of making charoses. Tosfos cites a Yerushalmi that states that the
charoses serves as a reminder of the blood in Mitzrayim. Tosfos notes that this is the
source for adding wine to the charoses. Tosfos also cites the Teshuvos HaGeonim that
states that the ingredients of the charoses should reflect the food items that the Jewish
people are compared to in Shir HaShirim. Included in this list are nuts and almonds, which
Ashkenazic Jews customarily add to their charoses. The Rambam (Hilchos Chometz
U'Matzah 7:11) mentions that raisins and dates should be included in the charoses.

The Rambam’s ruling regarding charoses appears to be contradictory. In Pirush

HaMishnayos to the Mishnah in Pesochim he paskens like the Chachomim that charoses
does not constitute a mitzvah. In Mishnah Torah (Hilchos Chometz U'Matzah 7:11)
however, the Rambam rules in accordance with the opinion of R’ Elozor ben Tzodok that

46
there is a mitzvah derabonon to have charoses at the table. The Lechem Mishnah notes
the above contraction in the Rambam.

The Lechem Mishnah notes another contradiction between the Rambam in Pirush
HaMishnayos and in Mishnah Torah. In Pirush HaMishnayos the Rambam asserts that
according to Rav Elazar ben Tzadok one must recite a berachah upon consuming charoses:
“Al achilas charoses”. However, in Mishnah Torah, where the Rambam rules in accordance
with R’ Elozor ben Tzodok, the Rambam makes no mention of reciting a berachah on the
charoses. The Lechem Mishnah writes that the Rambam must have changed his mind from
the time he wrote his Pirush HaMishnayos to the time he wrote Mishnah Torah.

Rav Soloveitchik's explanation

Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (Hararay Kedem 2:94) explains the conceptual basis for the
Rambam’s change and how the two contradictions fit nicely together. In Pirush
HaMishnayos, the Rambam believed that R’ Elozor ben Tzodok thought that it is a mitzvah
to eat charoses. Accordingly, R’ Elozor ben Tzodok would require us to recite a berachah
of “al achilas charoses” on it. The Rambam, in turn, didn’t want to pasken in accordance
with R’ Elozor ben Tzodok, since in practice the Rambam observed that no one recites a
berachah on charoses. In Mishnah Torah, on the other hand, the Rambam believes that R’
Elozor ben Tzodok does not understand the mitzvah of charoses to be one of eating the
charoses. Rather, the mitzvah is to merely have the charoses present on the seder table
to enhance the sippur yetzias Mitzrayim and to be available for dipping. Hence, even
according to R’ Elozor ben Tzodok, we do not recite a berachah upon charoses since there
is no maaseh (specific concrete act of mitzvah performance) associated with this mitzvah
other than its being present on the seder table. Accordingly, since based on this new
understanding there is no common practice running counter to the opinion of R’ Elozor
ben Tzodok, the Rambam accepts this opinion as normative, as indicated in Pesochim
116a.

Rav Soloveitchik explains that the above is clear from the Mishnah. The Mishnah (114a)
says: ‫“ – הביאו לפניו מצה וחזרת וחרוסת וכו׳ אע״פ שאין חרוסת מצוה ראב״צ אומר מצוה‬they
brought in front of him matzah, lettuce and charoses etc. even though in bringing charoses
there is no mitzvah. R’ Elozer ben Tzodok says, there is a mitzvah”.

Presumably when R’ Elozer ben Tzodok says charoses is a mitzvah, he is going back on
what the Chachomim said, namely: ‫“ – הביאו לפניו מצה וחזרת וחרוסת‬they brought in front
of him matzah, lettuce and charoses”. The Chachomim hold charoses is brought to the
table for dipping, however, the bringing isn’t a mitzvah and R’ Elozer ben Tzodok holds
bringing it to the table is a mitzvah, however, there is no mitzvah in the actual eating of it.
The reason we dip maror and matzah into charoses is to ensure that it isn’t brought for

47
nothing, and so we make it part of the mitzvos halailoh [mitzvos of the night], however,
the main mitzvah is the bringing it to the table and not the eating of it.

Practical ramifications
Based on the above we can now understand why there is no mitzvah to eat a kezayis of
charoses. We can also understand the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling (Orach Chaim 475:1) that
the charoses should be removed from the maror before consuming the maror. We can
also understand why the Mishnah Berurah (475:17) says that one should remove the
charoses from the maror we use for korech. Since the charoses can neutralize the bitter
taste of the maror and there is no mitzvah to eat charoses, halachah requires that we
remove the charoses from the maror.

The status of quinoa in regards to Pesach

It is well known that the issur of chometz on Pesach only applies to products produced
from the five major grains: wheat, barley, oats, spelt, or rye. Yet, already in place from the
times of the rishonim, there was an Ashkenazic prohibition against eating kitniyos
[legumes] on Pesach, except in times of famine or grave need. Although several poskim
opposed this prohibition, nonetheless, the ban is binding on Ashkenazic Jewry in full force,
even today.

The poskim all refer to the problem of kitniyos in slightly different terms. The Kitzur
Shulchan Aruch refers to the kitniyos restriction as an issur, the Mishnah Berurah calls
it a chumrah, the Aruch HaShulchan says it’s a geder, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank calls it a
gezeirah, Rav Moshe Feinstein refers to it as a minhag, and the Klausenberger Rebbe
denotes it as a takonah. Nonetheless, they all maintain that the kitniyos prohibition is
compulsory on all Ashkenazic Jewry. In fact, the Aruch HaShulchan writes: “once our
forefathers have accepted this prohibition upon themselves, it is considered a geder m’din
Torah, and one who is lenient is testifying about himself that he has no fear of Heaven.”
He adds, echoing Shlomah Hamelech’s wise words in Koheles regarding a poretz geder
[one who doesn’t listen to boundaries that Chazal made]: “One who breaks this
prohibition deserves to be bitten by a snake.”

Several reasons are given for the prohibition of kitniyos on Pesach. One reason is, that
kitniyos is often grown in close proximity to grain, and is commonly stored together with
grain and therefore actual chometz might actually end up mixed in with the kitniyos.
Another reason is, cooked dishes made from grain and kitniyos look similar; and that
kitniyos can likewise be ground up into flour — a “bread” of sorts can actually be made
from them. Since there are many who will not be able to differentiate between these
“breads” and their forbidden chometz counterparts, kitniyos was deemed as prohibited.

48
Potatoes, peanuts and corn

So what is the status of quinoa? Although it has been around for many years, it has only
recently gained popularity, does quinoa fit the kitniyos criteria or not?

Perhaps we can glean some insight into quinoa’s status by looking at some other food
products that only gained popularity long after the kitniyos prohibition started, such as
potatoes, peanuts and corn.

It would seemingly be quite difficult for anyone to mix up potatoes with chometz grain, so
to say potatoes are chometz due to the fact that people will mix them up with the five
grains is not an option. However, potatoes can and are made into potato flour and potato
starch, and some even bake potato bread. If so, why don’t we treat potatoes as kitniyos
and say that Ashkenazim are forbidden to eat them on Pesach?

There is a Chayei Adam (Nishmas Adam, Hilchos Pesach, shailah 20) which seemingly
considers potatoes as kitniyos, and the Pri Megadim mentions that he knows of such a
custom to prohibit potatoes on Pesach as a type of kitniyos. However, the vast majority of
poskim rule that potatoes are not any form of kitniyos and are permissible to all on Pesach.

One of the main reasons for this is that at the time when the Ashkenazic
rishonim established the decree prohibiting kitniyos, potatoes were completely unknown!
It is possible that had they been readily available, they might have found themselves on
the “forbidden list” as well. Yet, since they were never included, and do not fit most of
the kitniyos criteria, contemporary poskim could not add “new types” to the list.

However, it must be noted that there are other important reasons why potatoes were
excluded. Of the criteria given for the decree of kitniyos, potatoes fit only one, that it can
be made into flour, and that a “bread” of sorts can be baked from it. No one would mix up
a potato with a grain kernel!

As Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach noted, Klal Yisroel never accepted the kitniyos
prohibition with the inclusion of potatoes.

The Shu”t Divrei Malkiel (1:28) says the minhag is to eat potatoes, ‫והוא עיקר מאכל פסח‬
‫“ – לרוב בני אדם‬and it’s one of the main foods people eat on Pesach”. The Sanzer Rebbe
even wittingly remarked: “The Chayei Adam (‫ )חיי אדם‬is trying to forbid something the
chayei adam [life of a person] depends on”.

R’ Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim 63) also mentions the above logic to permit
peanuts on Pesach for those who have no opposing minhag. Since at the time they

49
instituted the kitniyos gezeirah peanuts weren’t around, R’ Moshe holds they weren’t
included in the gezeirah.

However, this psak was not as widely accepted since peanuts, a true legume, and as
opposed to potatoes, can get mixed up with grain. In fact, the minhag in Yerusholayim is
to consider both peanuts and it’s oil to be kitniyos.

On the other hand, we find that there is another new world product, corn, which
seemingly unanimously is included as part of the kitniyos prohibition. Corn exhibits many
of the characteristics of real kitniyos: it grows near other grains, has small kernels, is made
into flour (that can be easily confused with grain flour), and corn bread is made from it.
Therefore, since corn fits many of the criteria for kitniyos, as opposed to potatoes, it was
included in the prohibition.

Is quinoa like potatoes and excluded or like corn and included

The contemporary poskim and kashrus agencies have been debating this very question.

View # 1 – Quinoa is not classified as kitniyos (Star-K, CRC, and Kof-K)

Several major American kashrus agencies, including the Star-K, who follow the psak of Rav
Moshe Heinemann, and the CRC (Chicago Rabbinical Council), following the psak of Rav
Gedalia Dov Schwartz, as well as the Kof-K, maintain that quinoa is essentially kosher for
Pesach. Since it is not even remotely related to the five grains (it is also not a legume and
not botanically related to peas and beans, which are of the original species of kitniyos
included in the decree), and was not around at the time of the kitniyos prohibition, it is
not considered kitniyos. Additionally, the Star-K tested quinoa to see if it would rise — yet,
instead, it decayed, which is a sure sign that it is not a true grain. The only issue, according
to them, is the fact that quinoa is processed in facilities that other grains are processed in.
Therefore, they maintain, if quinoa is processed in facilities under special, reliable Pesach
supervision, there is no Pesach problem. In fact, every year since, the Star-K has given
special kosher for Pesach hashgocha on certain types of quinoa.

View # 2 — Quinoa is classified as kitniyos

However, Rav Yisroel Belsky, zt”l, chief posek for the OU, disagreed. He argued, that since
quinoa fits every criterion for kitniyos, it should be included in its prohibition. Quinoa is
the staple grain in its country of origin. It is grown in proximity of and can be mixed up
with the five grains. It is collected and processed in the same way (and in the same
facilities) as the five grains, and is cooked into porridge and breads, the same as the five
grains. He maintained that it should be compared to corn, which was, for similar reasons,
included in the kitniyos prohibition.

50
Although quinoa is a new world food item and was not included in the original prohibition,
nevertheless, he explained that that line of reasoning applies exclusively to items that are
not clearly kitniyos, to foods that may share only several characteristics with kitniyos.
However, since quinoa and corn would certainly have been included in the gezeira had
they been discovered, as they share every criterion of kitniyos, they are consequently, by
definition, considered kitniyos. This stringent view is shared by the rulings of Rav Dovid
Feinstein, Rav Osher Yaakov Westheim of the Badatz Igud Rabbonim of Manchester, and
Rav Shlomah Miller of Toronto, among other well-known Rabbonim.

The OU and Ok’s approach

On the other hand, the OU’s other main posek, Rav Herschel Schachter, permits quinoa,
concluding that if it is processed in a special facility with no other grains, it should be
permitted for use on Pesach.

Due to the difference of opinions of their top poskim, until fairly recently, the OU did not
certify quinoa as kosher for Pesach. However, in late 2013, the OU made a decision
allowing quinoa for Pesach, provided that it is processed with special Pesach supervision.
In fact, the OU recommended quinoa for Pesach 2014, and actually started certifying
special Pesach processing runs. This certification continued for Pesach 2015, and currently
the OU continues to grant special Pesach supervision annually for quinoa.

Similarly, although the OK considered quinoa kitniyos for many years, in 2018 they
reversed their longstanding policy and no longer regard quinoa as kitniyos. As such, they
presently allow it to be served at their Pesach programs, provided that it has supervision
and certification for Pesach. However, they currently do not actually grant certification to
quinoa as “Kosher for Pesach .”

Other kashrus agencies and poskim

Although by 2019 all of the major kashrus agencies in America had either permitted or
actually certified quinoa for Pesach, on the other hand, not every kashrus agency in North
America agreed with this permissive ruling. For example, the CRC does not recommend
quinoa for Pesach, as they consider it kitniyos, as does the COR of Toronto and the MK of
Montreal. This is also the Badatz Eidah Hachareidis of Yerusholayim’s approach, as in their
annual Madrichei HaKashrus they maintain that food items which are planted in the
ground as seeds (zironim), harvested as seeds (garinim) and are edible, are considered
kitniyos. The Yerushalmi mesorah for this goes back centuries. They therefore quite
definitively include quinoa as kitniyos.

51
The view of the poskim in Eretz Yisroel

Other poskim who ruled similarly include Rav Elyashiv, who determined that quinoa
should be considered kitniyos after being shown it and hearing from representatives of
various kashrus agencies. Also, Rav Asher Weiss addressed this topic in his weekly
halachah shiur, as well as in several Teshuvos, and concluded that it is indeed kitniyos. This
is also the opinion of Rav Yehoshua Yeshaya Neuwirth (mechaber of Shemiras Shabbos
Kehilchosah), Rav Yaakov Ariel of Ramat Gan, and Rav Mordechai Najari of Ma’aleh
Adumim. Similarly, the current Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rav Dovid Lau, wrote that
quinoa is permitted on Pesach only for “ochlei kitniyos.”’ This also appears to be the
Israeli Rabbanut’s position.

Additionally, the largest Sephardic kashrus agencies in Eretz Yisroel, the Beit Yosef and
Rav Shlomah Machpud’s Yoreh Deah, although giving hashgocha on quinoa for Pesach,
both qualify that it is reserved exclusively for “ochlei kitniyos,” squarely calling
quinoa kitniyos. In light of all this, in addition to the Badatz Eidah Hachareidis’s prevailing
approach of following the Yerushalmi custom that is based on the talmidim of the Vilna
Gaon, it seems much less likely to see quinoa gracing Pesach tables in Eretz Yisroel.

A middle approach

Rav Avraham Blumenkrantz, zt”l in his Kovetz Hilchos Pesach, took a middle approach,
acknowledging both sides of the quinoa debate and maintains that anyone who suffers
from gluten or any Pesach-related allergies or conditions (e.g., celiac) may comfortably
use quinoa on Pesach without hesitation. This is also the opinion of Rav Dovid Ribiat,
author of The Thirty-Nine Melachos, as well as the view of the London Beis Din (KLBD).

Rav Mordechai Tendler, grandson of Rav Moshe Feinstein and author of Mesores Moshe,
feels this is the approach that he felt his venerated grandfather would have taken, and not
(as many mistakenly opine) that Rav Moshe would have permitted it outright, had quinoa
been introduced while he was still alive.

R’ Yehuda Spitz writes, he feels that the point Rav Tendler was making is that there seems
to be a common misconception that Rav Moshe Feinstein, in his Teshuva defining
peanuts’ kitniyos status, gave a blanket hetter for any new world food item. However, this
is not entirely correct, as we mentioned, corn was introduced long after the kitniyos
restriction and is still treated as kitniyos. Rather, Rav Moshe used that as a reasoning to
explain why potatoes were not included in the restriction, as well as peanuts for those
who did not have an existing minhag, but he wasn’t saying a blanket rule, that anything
that became a world food after the kitniyos restriction isn’t included in the gezeirah of
kitniyos.

52
Rav Moshe held that minhag and similarity to all kitniyos factors also play an important
role in classifying kitniyos. Therefore, he did not intend to give a blanket permit for every
“new food.” As such, Rav Tendler was relating that it would seem tenuous at best to apply
that Teshuva as the exclusive basis to a hetter permitting quinoa for Pesach.

In fact, in Mesores Moshe (vol. 2) it’s written explicitly that Rav Moshe related that
although corn is also a new world food item, it was nonetheless added to the kitniyos
restriction since it fits many of the same criteria of the prohibited kitniyos, as opposed to
potatoes and peanuts. Although he doesn’t speak about quinoa we see that it’s not so
simple to say according to R’ Moshe, that any new product is not included in the gezeirah.

Conclusion

It seems that there truly is no quiet clear-cut conclusion to this contemporary kashrus
controversy. Should one eat it on Pesach? One must ask his own personal shailah.

[Most of the above has been adapted from a halachah write-up from R’ Yehudah Spitz,
especially all the information about what various kashrus authorities hold. For a more in
depth discussion see his sefer called “Food: A Halachic Analysis”.]

Eating chometz sold to a goy over Pesach on Shabbos, when Pesach

ends on Friday night
Those who are zoiche to be in Eretz Yisroel this year for Pesach and keep only one day Yom
Tov, will be presented with an interesting shailah. This year Pesach ends on Friday night,
the question is, is one allowed to eat the chometz that he sold to a goy over Pesach on the
Shabbos after Pesach.

Something muktzeh bein hashmoshos of Shabbos is muktzeh the entire Shabbos

There is a rule in Hilchos Muktzeh that ‫מיגו דאתקצאי לבין השמשות אתקצאי לכולי יומא‬, which
means that if something is muktzeh when Shabbos comes in, even if it ceases to be
muktzeh as Shabbos continues, since at the beginning of Shabbos it was muktzeh it
remains muktzeh the entire Shabbos.

Tosfos in Beitzah (4a)

From Tosfos in Beitzah (4a) it’s clear, that even though there is a rule of ‫מיגו דאתקצאי לבין‬
‫השמשות אתקצאי לכולי יומא‬, we only say it if the issur muktzeh at the beginning of Shabbos
is because of Shabbos itself, if however, the item is, ‫“ – מוקצה מחמת יום שעבר‬muktzeh
because of the previous day”, i.e. not because of Shabbos, but because of the day before
Shabbos, then we don’t say it.

53
It should therefore come out, that even though one isn’t allowed to eat chometz bein
hashmoshos of Shabbos (Friday night going into Shabbos) and therefore the chometz
should be considered muktzeh, since the reason one can’t eat chometz is because it might
still be considered Pesach and not because of Shabbos, it’s a case of ‫מוקצה מחמת יום שעבר‬
and the chometz therefore isn’t muktzeh the entire Shabbos.

Sha’ar HaMelech

However, the Sha’ar HaMelech (Hilchos Yom Tov 1:24) writes, that the chiddush [novelty]
of Tosfos in Beitzah is only in a case where the issur involved is an issur derabonon, if
however, one isn’t allowed to eat something bein hashmoshos because of an issur
de’O’raisa, then even if it was ‫ מוקצה מחמת יום שעבר‬it still has the status of muktzeh the
entire Shabbos.

The Pri Megodim (498:2 and in Pesicha to Hilchos Yom Tov 17) also takes on like the Sha’ar
HaMelech and he therefore paskens, that if one shects a mother sheep on erev Yom Tov,
one isn’t allowed to shect her child the entire Yom Tov. There is an issur of oisoi v’es benoi,
which means that one isn’t allowed to shect a mother and her child on the same day. If
one shects a mother sheep on erev Yom Tov, he isn’t allowed to shect her child on the
same day. On Yom Tov, during bein hashmoshos it’s ossur to shect the child as it may still
be considered the same day. Since when Yom Tov came in it was ossur, the animal is
considered muktzeh and one isn’t allowed to shect it the entire day. Even though it’s a
case of ‫מוקצה מחמת יום שעבר‬, in a case of an issur de’O’raisa, the Pri Megodim takes on
that we don’t say the above.

According to the Sha’ar HaMelech and the Pri Megodim, since chometz is also an issur
de’O’raisa, it would come out, that even though it’s a case of ‫מוקצה מחמת יום שעבר‬, since
at the beginning of Shabbos it was ossur, it will remain muktzeh the entire Shabbos.

The Rambam argues

However, the Rambam seems to contradict the above. The Rambam (Hilchos Shechitah
12:14) brings down, that there are four times a year, that if one sells a mother animal and
her child on the same day, the seller has to notify the second buyer, in order to ensure
that the second buyer doesn’t shect his animal on the same day as the first buyer and
transgress on the issur of oisoi v’es benoi. The four times are, erev Yom Tov Achron Shel
Succos, erev Yom Tov Rishon Shel Pesach, erev Shavuos and erev Rosh Hashanah. The
Rambam in Pirush HaMishnayos (Chullin 83a) explains, the reason for the above is,
because on these days people buy animals with the intention to shect them on the same
day.

54
The Rambam adds, that once the buyer is notified, ‫“ – לא ישחוט עד למחר‬he will be careful
not to shect it until the next day”. It’s seems clear from the Rambam, that if the second
buyer waits until Yom Tov (after bein hashmoshos) then he can shect. The question is,
there was an issur de’O’raisa of oisoi v’es benoi to shect the animal bein hashmoshos, so
we should say, since it was muktzeh when Yom Tov came in, it’s muktzeh the entire Yom
Tov? The answer must be, that the Rambam argues on the Sha’ar HaMelech and Pri
Megodim and holds that even if something is ossur mid’O’raisa, since it was ‫מוקצה מחמת‬
‫ יום שעבר‬we don’t say it remains muktzeh the entire Yom Tov.

As a result, it should come out according to the Rambam, that when Pesach ends on Friday
night, it’s ok eat chometz that was sold to a goy on that Shabbos, and there is no problem
of muktzeh.

R’ Ovadia Yosef in his Yechave Da’as (2:64) brings a Shu’t Koach Shor (siman 2) who learns
that the Ran argues on Tosfos and holds there is no such din as ‫מוקצה מחמת יום שעבר‬,
however, he then brings a Shu”t Machzeh Avrohom (siman 111) who says that even the
Ran agrees to Tosfos.

A goys chometz can’t become muktzeh

R’ Ovadia suggests another reason to allow eating chometz sold to a goy on the Shabbos
after Pesach. He says, since over Pesach the chometz belonged to a goy, it doesn’t even
become muktzeh. He brings the Yerushalmi in Beitzah (3:2) which says clearly that a goys
item can’t become muktzeh. This is also how the Shulchan Aruch (498:3) and Rema (310:2,
505:1) take on.

In fact the Ohr Some’ach (Hilchos Yom Tov, perek 4) says explicitly, that one is allowed to
take chometz from a goy in Eretz Yisroel on the Shabbos after Shevii Shel Pesach. Even
though normally we say something that is muktzeh when Shabbos comes in is muktzeh
the entire Shabbos even in a case of ‫מוקצה מחמת יום שעבר‬, since in this case the chometz
belonged to a goy it isn’t considered muktzeh, and therefore, one is allowed to get
chometz off the goy.

R’ Ovadia’s bekius

R’ Ovadia then brings the sefer Birchas HaMayim (siman 446) who says the above and
adds that the Ritva in Succah (46b) says that there is only an issur of muktzeh on something
which is ‫מוקצה מחמת יום שעבר‬, on items such as succah decorations because one sets
them aside not to use (‫)דדחינהו בידים‬, on chometz however, where the issur comes on its
own, we don’t say the above. He adds that one can even buy pas palter [bread baked by
non Jewish bakery] from a goy on the Shabbos after Shevii Shel Pesach.

55
Then he brings a Shu”t Mekor Yisroel (siman 104) who brings from the Shulchan Aruch
(325:4) that one is allowed to take for Shabbos bread that a goy baked for himself, or for
other goyim. Consequently, on the Shabbos after Pesach one can get from a goy bread for
the Shabbos meals, and there is no problem of muktzeh as there is no issur of muktzeh on
a goys bread.

R’ Ovadia then brings a Teshuvos R’ Akiva Eiger (siman 5) which says, that according to the
those who learn that all food on Yom Kippur is muktzeh and the fact that young children
can eat on Yom Kippur doesn’t make a difference, we have a rayah [proof] that something
which is ‫מוקצה מחמת יום שעבר‬, doesn’t remain muktzeh the entire Shabbos. If it did, then
according to R’ Akiva in Shabbos (114a) that Shabbos can fall after Yom Kippur, it would
come out, that all food is muktzeh on that Shabbos and everyone would have to fast an
additional day.

Moreover, adds R’ Akiva Eiger, in Eretz Yisroel when the first day of Pesach falls on
Shabbos (so that Shevii Shel Pesach ends Friday night) it would be ossur to eat chometz on
Shabbos after Pesach.

We see from all the above, that on something which is ‫ מוקצה מחמת יום שעבר‬we don’t say
since it was muktzeh when Shabbos came in it remains muktzeh the entire Shabbos, and
we also see that we don’t differentiate if it’s because of an issur de’O’raisa or because of
an issur derabonon.

HaRav Tuchachinsky is stringent

R’ Ovadia brings, that even though HaRav Michul Tuchachinsky in his Luach Eretz Yisroel
says one shouldn’t eat chometz on the Shabbos after Shevii Shel Pesach, the halachah is
that it’s mutar to.

Making a kinyan on Shabbos

We have shown that there may not be an issue of muktzeh, but surely there is another
problem. One can’t acquire back his chometz from a goy on Shabbos, so if one eats it, he
will be stealing from the goy? To solve this issue, R’ Ovadia says, it’s written clearly on the
shtar mechira [sale contract] that the Jewish owner is allowed to take chometz back from
the goy and he will pay him for the value.

It would come out according to this, that if the shtar mechira didn’t contain this clause,
one wouldn’t be able to eat his chometz sold to a goy on this Shabbos.

56
Conclusion

It’s mutar to eat chometz on the Shabbos after Shevii Shel Pesach and there is no problem
of muktzeh. However, one needs to be careful not to take the chometz back off the goy
whilst it is still Pesach, as he will end up transgressing on ‫ בל יראה ובל ימצא‬and not only
that, it will be forbidden to benefit from the chometz, because it will be ‫חמץ שעבר עליו‬
‫“ – הפסח‬chometz that has passed through Pesach”.

If the goy on his own accord brings the chometz on Shevii Shel Pesach to the Jews house
and leaves it there, the Jew should make sure that he doesn’t show any signs of approval,
and he should even try and speak out explicitly that he doesn’t want to reacquire it now.

Preparing for the Seder

The Gemara in Pesochim (116b) establishes that a blind person is exempt from the
obligation of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim [telling the story of yetzias Mitzrayim on Pesach],
an exemption which the Gemara infers from the text of the Torah’s command. The Torah
commands telling one’s children: ‫“ – בעבור זה עשה ה׳ לי בצאתי ממצרים‬This is on account
of what Hashem did for me when I left Mitzrayim” (Shemos 13:8) and in Devorim (21:20),
the Torah instructs the parents of a ben sorer u’moreh [the wayward son] to tell the Beis
Din: ‫“ – בננו זה סורר ומורה‬this son of ours, is a rebellious son”. The Gemara concludes on
the basis of this parallel that just as the law of ben sorer u’moreh applies only if both
parents are able to see, similarly, the obligation of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim applies only
to parents whose vision is intact.

The concept underlying this exemption is that a blind parent is incapable of bringing the
story of yetzias Mitzrayim to life for his children, as he lacks the ability to show them the
matzah, for example, and explain how it represents yetzias Mitzrayim. For this reason, the
blind parent is exempt from the mitzvah. The Torah recognizes that in order to make a
real impact upon the child, the parent must speak to the child in a manner of ‫בעבור זה‬, by
visually demonstrating the material.

Even if a parent can see, he can be “blind” in terms of how he speaks to his children at
the seder, if he did not properly prepare for this holy night by finding the most effective
ways to relate the story of yetzias Mitzrayim to each one of his children. Every person
must prepare his words so he can speak in a suitable manner to each child, teach them
with unlimited patience, and make the story come to life. For example, he can describe to
his children how Moshe and Aharon looked, in light of the fact that they stood ten amos
tall (Shabbos 92a), and they stood before Pharaoh who was just one amoh tall (Mo’ed

57
Kotan 18a). By being illustrative when presenting the information, one ensures that it will
leave an indelible impact.

Every Jewish boy and girl from a young age has an image in his or her mind of Pharaoh
running around the homes of Bnei Yisroel on the night of yetzias Mitzrayim, because once
upon a time a person came along and wrote a song that describes Pharaoh rushing to the
people’s homes in his pajamas that night. This resulted in the image being permanently
engraved in the mind of every Jewish child. If any child is woken in the middle of the night
at any time of year and asked how Pharaoh looked on the night of yetzias Mitzrayim, he
or she would immediately describe this image, because it has been entrenched in
everyone’s minds. This is what we must all try to do to the best of our ability – to depict
the story of yetzias Mitzrayim in an effective manner. One who does not know how to do
it must go and consult with people to receive guidance. Just as nobody is ashamed to
inquire about the validity or quality of a lulav or esrog before Succos, similarly, one should
not be embarrassed to ask how to tell the story of yetzias Mitzrayim to his children in the
best possible way.

This lofty mitzvah requires a settled mind such that one can focus properly. Therefore,
one must not let chumros such as eating the afikoman before chatzos or the size of the
kezayis and similar issues to distract his attention. These chumros all involve requirements
which are derabonon, enacted by Chazal, whereas the mitzvah of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim
constitutes an outright mitzvah de’O’raisa. Therefore, if one knows that the issue of
chatzos will cause him anxiety at the seder, he can use the solution proposed by the Avnei
Neizer (Orach Chaim 381:5) so he can conduct the seder and fulfill the mitzvos with joy
and serenity.

The more effort we invest into this mitzvah, the more special assistance we will receive
from Hakodosh Boruch Hu and succeed in instilling emunah within the hearts of all our
children and draw them to Torah and avodas Hashem, amen kein yehi ratson. (Tolner
Rebbe)

‫קדש‬
The Pesach seder begins with kiddush, which is the first of the four cups of wine that we
are required to drink. Rashi writes in Pesochim (99b) that these four cups correspond to
the four expressions of redemption mentioned in the Torah (Shemos 6:6-7). However, this
begs the question: even if we want to commemorate these four different expressions of
freedom at the seder, why must we specifically do so by drinking four cups of wine as
opposed to any other food item, such as eating four apples?

58
Rav Shlomah Zalman Auerbach famously explains that the four expressions of redemption
aren't four different phrases connoting freedom, but four different levels of freedom, with
each one being higher than the one below it. Therefore, Chazal specifically instituted a
requirement to drink four cups of wine because wine is unique in that each additional
glass isn't simply more of what we've already had, but rather it qualitatively brings
additional joy and happiness.

With apples or any other food, this isn't the case, as each additional fruit is essentially the
same as those which preceded it, and by the third and fourth serving one is already
accustomed to it and it adds little additional value. Because we are commemorating the
four expressions of redemption and the fact that each represents a higher level of freedom
and joy, wine is the appropriate means for doing so.

An alternative explanation I saw brought down from R’ Ozer Alport is, that wine is unique
in that it is made from grapes. In their state as grapes, there is nothing particularly special
about them, and the berachah recited when eating them is the same as for any other fruit.
Only after they have been crushed with the proper amount of pressure does their juice
come out, at which point it must be left to ferment in the right environment so that it
becomes wine and not vinegar. In this sense, grapes are a perfect metaphor for the
experience of the Jewish people in Mitzrayim. The Mitzriyim constantly pressed and
squeezed the Jewish slaves, but their doing so was part of Hashem's master plan to subject
the Jewish people to a ‫ כור הבזרל‬- iron furnace , in order to purify them and bring out their
true greatness.

In fact, the very name Mitzrayim refers to constricting borders, which describes the
experience of the Jewish slaves in Mitzrayim. However, just like the liquid secreted by the
grapes, the Jews had a choice to succumb to the tests and trials and become vinegar, or
to rise and overcome them to maximize their potentials by becoming wine. Because wine
is unique in this regard and contains this symbolic message, Chazal specifically
commanded us to use it to represent the four expressions of redemption.

‫קדש ורחץ‬
We start off the Haggadah with the simonim, kadeish, urchatz, karpas… the 15 simonim
of the Haggadah. It is interesting to note that only between kadeish and urchatz is there
a ‘vov’. If we analyze the expression kadeish urchatz it seems to be an inverted expression.
Kadeish means to make oneself holy, and urchatz means to wash oneself off from the
tumah that he has. Normally, when one wants to clean something, he first gets rid of the
dirt and then adds the shine. The order should be rochatz v’kadeish why is it reversed?

The lesson of seder night is, that even though people often think that to reach levels of
kedusha they must rid themselves of their yetzer horah and of all the things that drag them

59
down, it’s not true. The lesson of Pesach is that one can jump straight into kedusha. Even
if one feels unworthy and that the yetzer horah is dragging him down, kadeish just jump
into the kedushah. Where do we see this?

We see this from what happened to Klal Yisroel in Mitzrayim. Klal Yisroel jumped from the
49th level of tumah straight into kedusha. There was no big teshuvah movement at the
time. In fact, at krias Yam Suf the malochim said, “these serve avodah zorah (Klal Yisroel)
and these serve avodah zorah (Mitzriyim)” we see they were serving avodah zorah and
even still a shifcha [maidservant] at the Yam Suf merited a greater level of prophecy than
Yechezkel ben Buzi. On Pesach we have to do what our forefathers did, and just jump
straight into kedushah. After we jump into the kedushah then we can worry about urchatz,
the getting rid of our yetzer horah.

With the above yesod, R’ Yisroel Reisman answers up various difficulties that come up on
seder night. Most mitzvos of the Torah that are specific are mitzvos that are fulfilled in the
day, i.e. shofar, lulav, hallel. Some mitzvos can be done by day or by night, i.e. succah or
kiddush. However, we rarely find mitzvos that are specific to the night, on Pesach
however, we are supposed to fulfill the mitzvos of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim, matzah, maror
and korban Pesach all by night, how come?

Throughout Tanach, the moshal of night-time (‫ )לילה‬normally represents a period of

darkness, a time of difficulty when we need emunah, a time of imperfection. It is a time
of koichois hatumah. Day represents taharah, as we know, the Beis HaMikdash was only
open by day. Most mitzvos are day mitzvos as night represents koichois hatumah. On
Pesach however, Hashem says, even whilst you are stooped in tumah, and struggling with
the yetzer horah jump straight in and be makedeish yourselves. On Pesach we are not
afraid of weaknesses and we are not afraid of dirt and we are not afraid of night. On
Pesach at night, kadeish urchatz, be mekadeish yourself even before the rechitzah and
even whilst it is still dark.

The korban Pesach is the only korban yochid [private korban] that can be brought even if
the majority of Klal Yisroel is tomei. We give it the din of a korban tzibbur which can be
brought even if the majority of Klal Yisroel is tomei. Every other korban that one brings
whilst tomei cannot be eaten except for the korban Pesach. The korban Pesach can be
brought even if one is on the 49th level of tumah, because on Pesach we jump straight into
the kedushah of kadeish urchatz. Even when the majority of Klal Yisroel is tohar, those
that are tomei get a second chance on Pesach Sheini. This is also a unique attribute of the
korban Pesach that we don’t find by any other korban.

The Rambam brings different customs of how to keep the children awake and interested
at the seder. The Rambam lists three things that are done. 1) Taking away the seder plate

60
(they used to physically carry away the seder plate before the meal began, nowadays we
just cover it), 2) Grabbing the matzos, which we do nowadays when the child steals the
afikomen, and 3) giving nuts and grain to the children.

We find a remez [hint] to the above on the pasuk: ‫( ולמען תספר באזני בנך‬Shemos 10:2).
‫ ולמען‬has the trop of a pozer, giving out (i.e. the giving out of nuts and grain). ‫ תספר‬has
the trop of a telisha ketanoh and telisha means grabbing, i.e. the grabbing of the afikomen.
‫ באזני בנך‬has the trop of kadmoh v’azloh, meaning you take and go which is a reference
to taking the seder plate off the table and going. The children then ask questions as to why
we are doing these three things.

The Haggadah Yerusholayim Umoi’a’deha brings down an interesting question. During the
Aseres Yemai Teshuvah many people refrain from eating nuts as egoiz [nut] is gematriya
cheit [sin] and during the Aseres Yemai Teshuvah we don’t want to have any connection
to cheit. So how come the first thing we give out to the children on seder night to keep
them up is nuts?

He answers, during Aseres Yemai Teshuvah we are afraid of cheit, even a hint to cheit we
will stay well away from. On seder night however, we are serving Hashem with great love
and we are jumping into kedushah. We are not afraid of egoiz we are not afraid of cheit,
we jump right into kedushah despite the egoizim, despite everything, that’s seder night.

The Shlah writes that seder night was the night that Yaakov stole the berachos from Eisav.
We know that Yitzchok asked for two goats, one for korban Pesach and one for a
shelomim. Yaakov came and gave Yitzchok the korban Pesach first. How could Yaakov be
sure that when he leaves Yitzchok, Yitzchok wouldn’t give a berachah to Eisav? He said
Eisav can’t get a berachah unless he gives something to eat to Yitzchok, after all that’s why
Yitzchok asked for food in the first place. So Yaakov said I will give my father the afikomon
and the din is: ‫“ – אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן‬that one isn’t allowed to eat after eating
the afikomen”. So Yaakov gave Yitzchok to eat until he had finished afikomen and now he
was no longer able to eat and then ran out of the room. Eisav then comes in and says
“come and eat”. Yitzchok says “I can’t eat anymore because I already had the afikoman”.

What does Yitzchok say? ‫“ – בא אחיך במרמה ויקח ברכתך‬Your brother came with trickery
and took the berachos” (Bereishis 27:35). Which trickery? B’mirma (2+40+200+40+5=287)
is equal to the gematria of afikomen (1+80+10+100+6+40+50 =287).

The question is, why out of all the days of the year did Yitzchok specifically want to give
the berachos on Pesach? The answer is, Pesach is the night of kadeish urchatz, Yitzchok
knew that Eisav was no tzaddik, however, he was hoping to give him kedusha. What better

61
night could there be then the night of kadeish urchatz, the night that wherever we are
holding we can jump straight into kedusha.

This also explains why right after talking about the chocham we talk about the rosha. There
most probably is not any other place in the Torah in which we discuss explicitly that a
rosha participates in a mitzvah. Sometimes it says that a mumar is disqualified from a
mitzvah. Sometimes it says nothing. But to just sit there and say that the rosha is part of
the seder, how can it be? The reason is, because it is Pesach by night and on this night we
let the rosha jump in and we tell him that this night we are not afraid of night, we are not
afraid of nuts, and we are not afraid of you. We are not afraid of reshoim, because Pesach
night is a night that a rosha can jump into kedusha and fulfill mitzvos, and that’s why
Yitzchok wanted to give the berachos to Eisav specifically on this night.

Seder night is the night of kadeish urchatz, a very special night where we can jump straight
into kedusha without even needing to wash ourselves first. Kadeish urchatz is in the right
order. Seder night is all about jumping, and in fact the word Pesach itself means to jump.
So let’s not waste the opportunity and lets jump straight in.

‫ורחץ‬
The Gemara in Pesochim (115a) brings that Rabbi Elozer says in the name of Rav Oshia:
“Any food item that is dipped in a liquid (dovar hateebulo b’mashkeh) requires hand
washing before eating”. Many poskim maintain that even nowadays one should do his
utmost to be vigilant with this and wash his hands before eating a food item dipped in
liquid. However, many people aren’t to careful about this halachah.

Based on the above, the Chida, in his Simchas HaRegel commentary on the Haggadah,
explains why urchatz is the only simon at the seder that starts with and added ‘vov’ (‫)ורחץ‬.
When Yitzchok Avinu gave the berachos to Yaakov he added an extra ‘vov’ and instead of
saying ‫“ – יתן לך‬Hashem should give you” he said ‫“ – ויתן לך‬and Hashem should give you”
(Bereishis 27:28). According to Chazal and cited by Rashi, the extra conjunctive ‘vov’
means, ‫ – יתן ויחזר ויתן‬that Hashem should continually and constantly give.

Likewise, the Chida explains the extra ‘vov’ in urchatz. The Baal Haggadah is transmitting
a message to us. Just like on seder night we are careful and make sure to wash before
dipping a vegetable in salt water, ‫רחץ ויחזר ורחץ‬, we should continue to wash our hands
anytime we want to eat a food dipped in liquid, all year round.

The Chasam Sofer and his son-in-law, the Chasan Sofer, write in a similar vein in their
Haggadah, that urchatz is meant to serve as a tochacha [rebuke] and yearly reminder to
those who are lackadaisical with the observance of this halachah, in order to remind

62
everyone that this applies year-round as well. Indeed, the Taz actually writes similarly, and
concludes that at least during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva one should be stringent.

Rav Shlomah Zalman Auerbach adds that the ‘vov’ connects urchatz to kadeish – meaning
kadeish urchatz – (as a command) that we should be mekadeish ourselves and continue
to wash for food items dipped in liquid – even if not stringent with this all year round.

The Levush understands urchatz somewhat differently. He maintains it’s not due to an
obligation of washing one’s hands before dipping something in liquid, rather it’s a special
chiyuv on seder night due to ‘chibas horegel’. Due to the special kedusha of seder night ,
‘we go the extra mile’ to strive for an increase in purity, as opposed to all year round, when
in his opinion, it would not be mandated.

The Netziv in his hakdomah to Imrei Shefer (pirush on Haggadah) has another unique
approach. The seder reminds us of the eating of the korban Pesach that took place when
the Beis HaMikdosh stood. Therefore, we follow the same halachic requirements at the
seder that were in place during the times of the Beis HaMikdosh. Everyone agrees that at
the time of the Beis HaMikdosh there was an obligation for one to wash his hands for
dipped food items, therefore, on seder night we do so as well, regardless of whether or
not we actually fulfill this year round.

Another idea, cited by the Rema in Darchei Moshe (Orach Chaim 473:12) is that the
Haggadah is akin to a tefillah, in which we relate thanks and praise to Hashem for
everything he has done for our ancestors and us. Therefore, immediately prior to the
recital of the Haggadah we wash our hands in preparation without a berachah similar to
the requirement before davening.

One more interesting explanation, suggested by Rav Reuven Margoliyos is that this
washing is performed at the very beginning of the seder night ‘derech cheirus’, to show
that we are doing so as free people and nobility, who are accustomed to washing their
hands prior to eating even a small amount. This is opposed to slaves, who do not have the
rights or ability for such extravagance, but rather ‘eat their bread with sweat’. This
reasoning would seem to fit well with the minhag many perform of ‘serving’ the baal
habayis for urchatz, by bringing him a wash basin and washing his hands.

‫מגיד‬
Why we don’t make a berachah on sippur yetzias Mitzrayim
There is a famous question which everybody asks. The question is, why don’t we make a
berachah on the mitzvah of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim? The rishonim already ask this
question and offer various technical reasons as to why not.

63
The Sefas Emes offers an explanation which helps shed some light on the idea of seder
night. The Sefas Emes explains that in general we do not make a berachah on any mitzvah
that is bein adom l'chaveiro [between man and his friend]. When it comes to a mitzvah
which has to do with benefitting another human being, such as tzedokah or kibbud av
v’em there is no berachah. The reason is, because the Rambam teaches that when it
comes to mitzvos sichliyos [logical mitzvos], a person should think to himself, that he
would do the mitzvah whether he was commanded to or not. When it comes to the
mitzvah of tzedokah, one has to think that he would do it, whether he was commanded
to or not. Similarly, when it comes to the mitzvah of kibbud av v’em one has to approach
with the attitude that he would do it, whether commanded or not. When there is a
mitzvah which a person would do, even if he wasn’t commanded, it is inappropriate to say
a berachah, ‫אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו‬, blessing Hashem for commanding us to do this
mitzvah, because then it sounds like we are only doing it because we are commanded.

Based on the above, the Sefas Emes explains, that when we fulfill the mitzvah of sippur
yetzias Mitzrayim, true it isn’t a mitzvah bein adom l’chaveiro, nevertheless, the main idea
behind the mitzvah is feeling hakoras hatov, and giving thanks to Hashem for taking us out
of Mitzrayim. It’s a mitzvas sichli [logical mitzvah] and it makes no sense to say ‫אשר קדשנו‬
‫במצותיו וצונו‬. Thanking Hashem for taking us out of Mitzrayim is a very logical mitzvah and
we would have done it even without being commanded, therefore, we don’t make a
berachah.

‫הא לחמא עניא די אכלו אבהתנא בארעא דמצרים‬

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig asks three question relating to the Haggadah. The first question he
asks is a very famous question, he asks how can it be that matzah serves both as a symbol
for redemption and salvation as well as a symbol for affliction and exile? We eat matzah
at the seder because when we were taken out of Mitzrayim, the dough did not have a
chance to rise. This is the symbol of redemption. On the other hand, it is in fact true that
this was also the bread the Jews ate in Mitzrayim throughout their period of enslavement.
We begin the Hagaddah by saying: ‫ הא לחמא עניא די אכלו אבהתנא בארעא דמצרים‬- “This is
the bread of poverty that our fathers ate in Mitzrayim …”. Is it not strange that the Torah
uses the very same symbol to represent both redemption and freedom and also slavery
and affliction?

The second question he asks is, the Aseres Hadibros begin with the pasuk: ‫– אנכי ה׳ אלקיך‬
“I am the L-rd your G-d”. The Medrash Tanchuma states that the word ‫ אנכי‬is of Egyptian
origin. The pasuk should really begin with the more common Hebrew word, ‫אני‬. So again
we have an irony that the Aseres Hadibros, which is the apex of the story of yetzias
Mitzrayim, start with a word which is reminiscent of the golus of Mitzrayim?

64
Finally, Rabbi Zweig notes, the Gemara in Pesochim (116a) emphasizes that the story of
yetzias Mitzrayim needs to be told in the sequence: ‫ מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח‬- “beginning
with that which is unseemly and ending in that which is praiseworthy”. When someone
wants to relate his life history – especially when he has reached a high point in his life –
he always begins the story with “I come from very humble beginnings”. As an example R’
Frand relates that when Henry Kissenger became Nixon’s Secretary of State, he got up and
mentioned how noteworthy it was that he was a refugee from Nazi Germany whose
parents had to flee the Nazis because of their Jewishness and now he was the American
Secretary of State! This is a classic example of ‫מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח‬. This is the natural
way to tell such a story. So why must Chazal insist that we need to tell the story in this
fashion, would we not tell it that way on our own, naturally?

Rabbi Zweig answered these three questions based on an interesting Rambam at the
beginning of Hilchos Avodas Kochavim. The Rambam describes how the theological error
of avodah zorah was introduced into society. He writes that initially no one attributed
independent power to the sun or moon. They assumed these heavenly bodies were agents
of the Ribbono Shel Olam. The belief system deteriorated until people started believing
the heavenly bodies had independent power. Ultimately, things deteriorated further until
people worshipped stone and wooden representations of these mistaken “heavenly
powers”. This is how the entire world — including Terach’s son Avrom, used to believe
and act. However, this young Avrom began to analyze and question how it could be that
such inanimate objects had power.

In other words, according to the Rambam, Avrom himself was a baal teshuvah - an idolater
who later repented and ultimately recognized his Creator, at the age of 40! When Avrom
became convinced of the errors of society, he actively promoted his own recognition of a
Ribbono Shel Olam, and revolutionized religious belief in the society in which he was living.

The Raavad asks two questions on the Rambam’s scenario. First, he quotes a Chazal that
Avrom recognized his Creator at age 3. [This is derived from the numeric value of the word
‫( עקב‬172) in the expression ‫“ – עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקולי‬Since Avrohom listened to My
voice” (Bereishis 26:5). Chazal say that Avrohom was faithful to the Word of Hashem for
172 out of his 175 years (meaning since he was 3 years old). Secondly, the Raavad says
that the Rambam’s description seems to ignore the presence of Shem and Ever, who were
older than Avrohom and who according to Rabbinic tradition never abandoned belief in
the truth of Hashem. Why, he asks, according to Rambam, was only Avrohom successful
in changing the world’s theological outlook?

Rav Yochanan Zweig explains as follows. If I am not a smoker and I try to convince a smoker
that he should give up smoking, he will ignore me. I can provide the most eloquent and

65
graphic arguments why he should stop smoking but because I do not know the “pleasure”
of inhaling a cigarette, I will be very unsuccessful in convincing someone who has
experienced that pleasure to give it up because of my protestations.

A person who was a smoker and smoked all his life and then became a “baal teshuva,”
and broke his addiction to nicotine, will be far more successful persuading a current
smoker that it is worth the effort to “kick the habit”. Just like a former smoker is more
effective in getting another smoker to give up smoking, so too a former idol-worshipper
(like Avrohom, according to the Rambam) will be much more effective than someone like
Shem and Ever, who never worshipped idols, at creating a new religion and getting other
idolaters to abandon their erroneous beliefs and accept the idea of monotheism.

A baal teshuva can often be more successful in getting another person to see the “light”
than a person who was “frum from birth”. To someone who is “frum from birth”, the free
spirit asks “what do you know? You have never experienced the pleasures of eating shell
fish! You have never experienced the pleasures that life has to offer! What do you know
about a life style that brings one satisfaction and happiness?” Someone who has “been
there; done that” and can say with conviction “This is a much better life” is someone to
whom the free spirited person will be willing to listen. Shem and Ever were frum from
birth. Avrohom Avinu was himself a baal teshuvah.

Avrohom Avinu was able to take those first 40 years of his life of theological error and idol
worship and turn them into a positive experience such that he could now relate to other
people and enable them to “see the light”.

This answers the other question of the Raavad as well. It is true that Avrohom only
recognized his Creator at age 40, but since he transposed his whole life experience to have
a spiritually positive impact on others, it can truthfully be said that for ‫( עקב‬172) years of
his life he ‫ שמע אברהם בקולי‬- “hearkened to the words of his Creator”. Retroactively from
age 40, he turned all of his life’s experiences from the time he first gained intelligence (age
3) into a spiritually positive experience.

This is what the Pesach seder is about. In other religions, l’havdil, there is a concept of
“born again”. This means whatever came before now is wiped off the map and this “born
again” person is a completely new individual. We do not speak in those terms for a baal
teshuvah. A person is obligated to take every aspect of his past life and try to turn it around
and use it positively.

This is why the symbol of freedom can also be the symbol of slavery. One can take the
experience of what it means to be a slave to Pharaoh and reshape it to gain insight into
what it means to be a servant to the Ribbono Shel Olam. This is why matzah can be both

66
the symbol of slavery and the symbol of freedom! Likewise, the Egyptian word ‫ אנכי‬can
itself be used to teach a new lesson – that of ‫“ – אנכי ה׳ אלקיך‬I am the L-rd your G-d”.
Finally, the ‫ – גנות‬the unseemly beginning must always remain part of the story. The ‫שבח‬
that occurs later can retroactively give new meaning and new nuance to all the
experiences of ‫ גנות‬that took place initially.

We neither ignore nor bury our unseemly past — we utilize it to motivate and enhance
the experience of our new spiritual direction.

‫מה נשתנה‬
Towards the beginning of Maggid the youngest child present asks the mah nishtanah,
which is a series of four questions that highlights various actions we do at the seder that
differ from our conduct on all other nights of the year. There is an unusual halachah that
states that if for any reason a person finds himself alone at the seder with nobody to ask
the mah nishtanah, he is required to ask himself these questions (Orach Chaim 473:7).
This obligation seems difficult to understand, as if we observe somebody engaged in
conversation with himself, we would normally suspect that he has a psychiatric illness. If
so, why did Chazal instruct a person to conduct the seder by talking to himself in such a
manner?

Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz explains that the mitzvah of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim is hard to
properly fulfill. Typically, the purpose of sharing information with another person is to tell
him something new that he does not already know. In this case, however, everybody at
the seder, including the children, already knows the story of yetzias Mitzrayim.

Moreover, the Haggadah explicitly states that even talmiday chachomim, who are
certainly familiar with the details of yetzias Mitzrayim, are nevertheless obligated to
recount it. To make our performance of this mitzvah easier, Chazal said that it should be
done in a question-and-answer format, as human nature is such that when we ask
questions, we become emotionally involved and interested in hearing the answers.

The meforshim point out, that in addition to the annual mitzvah of retelling the story of
yetzias Mitzrayim at the seder, there is an additional mitzvah of remembering yetzias
Mitzrayim, which is performed twice a day during krias shema. What is the difference
between these two mitzvos?

The daily mitzvah of remembering yetzias Mitzrayim is intellectual in nature, as we

constantly remind ourselves about the topic. Although the mitzvah of sippur yetzias
Mitzrayim at the seder revolves around the same subject, its purpose is to emotionally
feel and relive the experience, as the Haggadah states, that every person is obligated to
view himself as if he personally went out from Mitzrayim. To facilitate the performance of

67
this mitzvah, Chazal ordained that we must perform unusual actions to motivate the
children to question our conduct, which will get them emotionally engaged and excited to
hear the answers.

The Gemara in Kiddushin (40a) records that Rav Huna taught that when somebody
commits an aveirah two times, it becomes permissible to him. The Gemara asks
incredulously, “Does it really become permissible?” The Gemara answers that Rav Huna
meant to say that if a person commits an aveira twice, he views it as if it is allowed, even
though it certainly remains forbidden.

If this was Rav Huna's intention, why didn't he avoid confusion by explaining himself more
clearly? Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz explains that Rav Huna was intentionally vague and
misleading because he wanted to shock people into asking the question, “Does it really
become permissible,” for now that the desire to know comes from the listener, he will be
drawn into the discussion and will pay close attention to the answer and internalize it.

HaRav Dan Lifshitz quotes Rav Boruch Sorotzkin, who adds, that the question-and-answer
format benefits not only the child asking the questions, but also the parent answering
them, as the process of teaching others helps us clarify our own understanding of a topic.
Hashem alluded to this dual function when He told Moshe (Shemos 10:2) that one of the
purposes of the makkos was “so that you will tell your son and your son’s son that I made
a mockery of Mitzrayim, and My signs that I placed among them, ‫ – וידעתם כי אני ד׳‬and
you will know that I am Hashem.” The Torah does not say we should tell our sons so that
they will know, but rather so that you (plural) will know, as the process of sippur yetzias
Mitzrayim through give-and-take not only ensures its transmission to future generations,
but enables us to appreciate it on a deeper level as well.

Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz uses the above concept to explain a well-known episode involving
Shlomah HaMelech. The Haftorah for Parshas Miketz discusses a case of two women who
gave birth, but one of their sons died. Each woman claimed that the living child belonged
to her and the dead child belonged to the other woman. After Shlomah listened to their
arguments, the Haftorah records (Melochim 1, 3:23) that he repeated their words: “This
woman said, ‘This is my son and the dead son is hers,’ and this woman said, ‘This is my
son and the dead son is hers.’”

The reason Shlomah did so is that when somebody repeats something and the words
come out of his mouth, they feel more like his own words and he senses more of a
connection to them. Doing so helped Shlomah ensure that he would investigate both of
their claims and positions with all of his focus in order to arrive at the correct ruling.

68
Similarly, the Gemara in Avodah Zorah (19b) says that Rav Alexandri once publicly
announced, “Who wants life?” A large crowd of people gathered around him to eagerly
hear the answer, at which point he told them: ‫נצור לשונך מרע ושפתיך‬...‫מי האיש החפץ חיים‬
‫“ – מדבר מרמה‬Who is the man who desires life ... Guard your tongue from evil, and your
lips from speaking deceit” (Tehillim 34:13-14). Although those assembled had certainly
read these pasukim before, they never fully understood them and didn't allow them to
enter their hearts. However, now that Rav Alexandri got their attention by calling out a
question to which they wanted the answer, they were motivated to voluntarily approach
him to hear his response, thereby enabling him to make a much more powerful impact,
which is a model for what we are supposed to accomplish at the seder through the
question and-answer format, both with our children and with ourselves.

‫מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות‬

Towards the beginning of Maggid the youngest child present asks the mah nishtanah,
which is a series of four questions that highlights various actions we do at the seder that
differ from our conduct on all other nights of the year. However, the Vilna Gaon points
out that the expression: ‫“ – מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות‬Why is this night different
from all other nights” seems to be grammatically incorrect, for the word ‫ לילה‬is feminine
– as evidenced by its plural form ‫ – לילות‬in which case the question should be worded ‫מה‬
‫נשתנה הלילה הזאת‬.

The Vilna Gaon explains that the concept of night symbolizes difficulty and suffering.
Accordingly, the word ‫ לילה‬should be feminine. However, in situations where the darkness
is actually beneficial, it is transformed and becomes masculine. The Zohar (Vol. 2, 38a)
teaches that on the night of the yetzias Mitzrayim, a tremendous light shone that was as
bright as day, and Dovid HaMelech describes it in Tehillim (139:12) as: ‫“ – לילה כיום יאיר‬a
night that shines like the day”, with the verb ‫ יאיר‬in the masculine. On this night, it only
appeared to be dark, but in reality, it was a remarkably joyous time that was analogous to
day. We allude to this by referring to seder night as ‫הלילה הזה‬, a ‫ לילה‬that is compared to
‫( יום‬day), a word which is masculine.

However, the Torah Temimah vehemently disagrees with the Vilna Gaon’s explanation,
for he maintains that the original question does not present any difficulty. He writes that
although the word ‫ לילה‬appears to be feminine, it is an exception to the rules of grammar
and is in fact masculine, as we find in the Megillah that when Achashveirosh’s sleep was
disturbed, it is described (Esther 6:1) as: ‫בלילה ההוא נדדה שנת המלך‬, not ‫בלילה ההיא‬,
which would be the feminine construct.

If so, why is ‫ לילות‬the plural of ‫לילה‬, which seems to indicate that it is feminine? The Torah
Temimah notes that there are other clearly masculine words that follow this pattern and

69
are similarly exceptions in this regard, such as ‫( בכור‬firstborn), which becomes ‫ בכורות‬in
the plural, making it appear to be feminine even though it is in fact masculine, and so too
is the case with ‫ לילה‬and ‫לילות‬.

To resolve the machlokes between the Vilna Gaon and the Torah Temimah, Rav Yisroel
Reisman suggests that the Vilna Gaon’s logic regarding the night of yetzias Mitzrayim also
applies to the night of Achashveirosh’s interrupted sleep, which was an extremely
important moment in the Megillah worthy of being likened to the masculine ‫יום‬. He adds,
that since Chazal teach us in Berachos (60b) that everything that Hashem does is
ultimately for the good, every difficult episode in our lives that presents itself as dark ‫לילה‬
is actually a ‫ יום‬full of light waiting to be discovered and revealed.

‫ואלו לא הוציא הקדוש ברוך הוא את אבותינו ממצרים הרי אנו‬

‫ובנינו ובני בנינו משעבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים‬
Hashem instructed Moshe to tell the Jewish people that He will take them out ‫מתחת‬
‫“ – סבלות מצרים‬from under the burdens of their suffering”. Although the pasuk literally
refers to Hashem taking the Jews out from under the burdens placed upon them by
Pharaoh and their Egyptian taskmasters, the Chiddushei HaRim suggests an alternate
reading that teaches a powerful lesson.

He suggests that ‫ סבלות‬can also be translated as ‘patience’, and therefore ‫מתחת סבלות‬
‫ מצרים‬can be translated to mean, “the patience to tolerate life in Mitzrayim.” As difficult
as their life was in Mitzrayim, the Jews had grown accustomed to it and learned to cope.
It represented the only stability they had ever known, and they did not even feel an
intense desire to be redeemed and go free into the unknown. Hashem told Moshe to hint
to the Jews that the first prerequisite to their salvation was the creation of a desire and
willingness to be saved.

The Medrash emphasizes the magnitude of the miracle involved in redeeming an entire
nation from slavery in Mitzrayim by recording that prior to yetzias Mitzrayim, not a single
slave ever successfully escaped from Mitzrayim. While the simple understanding is that
this was due to an effective system of policing the borders, Rav Gedaliah Schorr suggests
that it was due less to physical control than to mind control. He suggests that the reason
no slave ever escaped was because none of them ever tried. Mitzrayim had such an
effective system of brainwashing the slaves and convincing them that life beyond the
border offered nothing they were currently lacking that they grew complacent and
content with their existence.

The following anecdote presents a modern application of this idea. When the town of Brisk
needed a Rov, they offered the position to the Beis HaLevi, who refused. Undeterred, the
community sent back messengers to inform the Beis HaLevi that 25,000 Jews were

70
anxiously awaiting his arrival at the train station in Brisk. This message caused him to
reconsider and accept the position.

Upon hearing this story, the Chofetz Chaim burst into tears. He explained, “If the Beis
HaLevi could not refuse 25,000 Jews eagerly anticipating his arrival, surely Moshiach
cannot do so either. His delay in coming can only be due to the fact that we’ve grown so
accustomed to our comfortable lives in golus [exile] that we do not feel lacking and are
not yearning for the final redemption,” a message which is sadly even more relatable now,
then it was in the time of the Chofetz Chaim.

‫ואפילו כולנו חכמים מצוה עלינו לספר ביציאת מצרים‬

Prior to killing the Egyptian who was hitting one of the Jewish slaves, Moshe looked
around in every direction to make sure there were no witnesses, yet somehow, his actions
become known to Doson and Avirom. When Moshe heard them casually invoke the fact
that he had killed an Egyptian taskmaster, he became frightened and remarked: ‫אכן נודע‬
‫הדבר‬, which literally means, “Now the matter is known” (Shemos 2:14).

However, Rashi explains that this was Moshe’s way of saying that now that he saw that
there were evil Jews talking negatively about one another, he understood why they
warranted such bitter and crushing enslavement, and he began to worry whether they
would be deemed worthy of salvation. In other words, Moshe recognized that the sin of
speaking badly about other Jews was powerful enough to prevent them from being
redeemed.

In light of Rashi’s interpretation, Rav Yitzchok Hutner explains (Pachad Yitzchok Pesach 1)
that we can now appreciate why the mitzvah of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim (Shemos 13:8) is
specifically done with one’s mouth. Chazal normally advise us (Avos 3:13): ‫סיג לחכמה‬
‫שתיקה‬, that wise people normally tend toward silence, so how come the Haggadah
explicitly tells us: ‫“ – וכל המרבה לספר ביציאת מצרים הרי זה משובח‬that the more one talks,
the more praiseworthy he is”?

The answer is, because on this night, the mitzvah is to be mekadesh the dibbur, to give
holiness to one’s speech, to make up for the Jews in Mitzrayim who were not careful with
their speech.

With this insight we can also understand why, ‫“ – ואפילו כולנו חכמים‬even if we were all
wise men”, there is still a mitzvah to speak about yetzias Mitzrayim. Normally we would
think the reverse, that even am horatzim (certainly chachomim) have to speak about
yetzias Mitzrayim, what does it mean “even talmiday chachomim”?

71
Based on the above we can explain, that even though normally we say ‫סיג לחכמה שתיקה‬,
that a sign of wise man is silence, on this night even if we are all wise men there is a
mitzvah to discuss yetzias Mitzrayim, and the more we do so, the more praiseworthy we
are. Because our mission is to view ourselves as if we personally came out of Mitzrayim,
we must rectify their sin of forbidden speech by using our mouths for mitzvos.

In a similar vein, Rav Tzodok HaKohen in his sefer Ohr Zorua LaTzaddik notes that opening
Mishnah in Pesochim begins with the words: ‫– אור לארבעה עשר בודקין את החמץ לאור הנר‬
“On the evening of the 14th of Nissan, we check for chometz by the light of a candle.” Why
does the Mishnah use the word ‫( אור‬light), to refer to the night? The Gemara in Pesochim
(3a) explains that this euphemism was intentionally employed to teach us to speak in a
sensitive manner. Rather than use the term “night” which has negative connotations,
Chazal chose to use the more positive word ‫אור‬.

Nevertheless, they had numerous opportunities throughout shas to teach this lesson by
replacing a coarse expression with a more refined one. Why did they specifically decide to
make this point here? Rav Tzodok suggests, that Chazal specifically wanted to introduce
this concept at the beginning of Pesochim, as purity of speech was an essential component
of our deliverance from Mitzrayim, and it is a trait that we must work on developing within
ourselves so that we too will merit the ultimate redemption.

‫וכל המרבה לספר ביציאת מצרים הרי זה משובח‬

On seder night, we have a special mitzvah (13:8) of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim, and in the
Haggadah, we declare that ‫“ – כל המרבה לספר ביציאת מצרים הרי זה משובח‬the more a
person speaks about yetzias Mitzrayim, the more praiseworthy he is”. We then proceed
to spend the entire seder night discussing yetzias Mitzrayim and using it as a springboard
to sing Hashem’s praises.

The Maharal (Gevuros Hashem 1) points out that this seems to contradict the Gemara in
Berachos (33b), which records that a person attempted to add to Hashem’s praises that
are enumerated in the first berachah of shemoneh rsrei. Instead of moving on after saying:
‫ל הגדול הגבור והנורא‬-‫“ – הק‬the great, mighty, and awesome G-d”, he continued and added:
‫“ – והאדיר והעזוז והיראוי החזק והאמיץ והודאי והנכבד‬Who is glorious, potent, feared, strong,
powerful, certain, and esteemed”.

After he completed his tefillos, Rav Chanina asked him, “By adding all these appellations,
have you mentioned all the praises of your Master?” Rav Chanina explained that we would
be forbidden to invoke even the limited expressions that we do mention – ‫ל הגדול‬-‫הק‬
‫ – הגבור והנורא‬if not for the fact that Moshe explicitly mentioned them in the Torah
(Devorim 10:17). However, beyond these, it is prohibited to append additional accolades
of our own, because we would never be able to stop. If so, why is seder night different, in

72
that not only are we commanded to spend the night exalting Hashem, we are encouraged
to add as many of our own plaudits as possible?

The Maharal answers, that on seder night, ‫– חייב אדם לראות את עצמו כאלו הוא יצא ממצרים‬
“one has to imagine as if he has just come out of Mitzrayim” and one has to have hakoras
hatov [gratitude] for what Hashem did. When it comes to recognizing the kindness that
Hashem did to us, there is no quieting a person. When it comes to hakoras hatov a person
has to let go, a person shouldn’t make any cheshboinos and he should express his
appreciation as best as he can. Seder night is the night we show hakoras hatov and thank
Hashem, for taking us out of Mitzrayim, choosing us as his chosen nation and giving us the
Torah and the more hakoras hatov one shows the more praiseworthy he is.

Rav Hutner in his sefer Pachad Yitzchok on Pesach (16) notes, that in explaining why we
should not attempt to add extra praises of Hashem to our tefillos, Rav Chanina says that
doing so is like approaching a king who possesses thousands of gold dinars (coins) and
lauding him for having silver ones. Rather than enhancing the king’s honour, this actually
diminishes it. Similarly, because all the titles and descriptions that we could possibly use
to praise Hashem pale in comparison to His true greatness, we shouldn’t attempt to
compose the praises of Hashem in our own words, which will only serve to reduce His true
glory.

According to the Gemara’s moshal [parable], Rav Hutner suggests, that if in addition to his
gold dinars, the king acquires personal possessions such as beautiful paintings that he
displays publicly, it would then be acceptable to compliment the paintings. Even though it
is normally forbidden to single out the paintings when he possesses even more valuable
gold, in a case where the king himself chooses to show them off for everybody to admire,
it becomes not only permissible, but appropriate to do so.

Rav Hutner points out that this is precisely what occurred by yetzias Mitzrayim. During the
makkah of tzefardea [frogs], Pharaoh summoned Moshe and Aharon and asked them to
entreat Hashem to bring an end to the makkoh. Moshe responded, ‫“ – התפאר עלי‬I will
show you something that is a magnificent praise”. Specify when you want the frogs to be
removed, and that is exactly when it will happen.

In other words, Hashem expressed through Moshe that His actions in Mitzrayim were
demonstrations of His splendor that were intended to publicly reveal His glory. Similarly,
we find in Parshas Bo (10:2) that one of the purposes of the makkos was to ensure that
we relate to future generations everything Hashem did to the Mitzriyim. Since Hashem’s
stated desire was that His conduct in Mitzrayim should inspire us to extol Him, it is
therefore appropriate and even commendable to discuss yetzias Mitzrayim at length as a
means of praising Him as much as possible.

73
 ‫וכל המרבה לספר ביציאת מצרים הרי זה משובח‬
The Torah says in Parshas Bo: ‫ואכלתם אותו בחפזון‬, that the eating of the matzah in
Mitzrayim was done in a rush. We usually picture yetzias Mitzrayim as a rush out of
Mitzrayim, they weren’t ready. However, the pasuk says: ‫ואכלתם אותו בחפזון‬, that they
were commanded beforehand to eat in a rush. How do you command someone to eat
matzah in a rush?

There is a very interesting Chasam Sofer (Toras Moshe, L’Yom Aleph shel Pesach). He says
there was a commandment to talk about yetzias Mitzrayim on that night. The Chasam
Sofer says that the mitzvah was to talk about yetzias Mitzrayim as much as they could to
the degree that in the end when it came time to eat matzah it would have to be last minute
and they would have to rush to eat it in time.

The Chasam Sofer writes that we see that it stayed that way for generations, we talk about
yetzias Mitzrayim and then we look at the clock and it’s late and we have to hurry with
eating the matzah. ‫ ואכלתם אותו בחפזון‬was a commandment to put their priorities in the
right place. To put their priorities into the mitzvah of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim, even
though it meant that they would have to eat matzah, maror, korech, shulchan oreich and
tzofun in a big rush. That’s how it was in Mitzrayim and that’s how it should be today as
well.

‫שהיו מסובין בבני ברק והיו מספרים ביציאת מצרים כל אותו הלילה‬
In the Haggadah we relate the story of R’ Eliezer, R’ Yehoshua, R’ Elozor ben Azariah, R’
Akiva and R’ Tarfon, who were sitting b’hesaiba [leaning] in Bnei Brak and were talking
about yetzias Mitzrayim. It sounds very much like they were leaning whilst fulfilling the
mitzvah of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim. This seems rather difficult, as the Mishnah Berurah
(473:71) brings from the Shlah that one shouldn’t say the Haggadah whilst leaning, as it
needs to be said with fear and trepidation?

Although the Mishnah Berurah brings from the Shlah that one shouldn’t lean, the Pri
Megodim and the Be’er Haitiv (473:27) maintain that one only has to refrain from leaning
whilst saying Hallel, whilst fulfilling the mitzvah of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim it’s ok to lean.

Perhaps leaning during sippur yetzias Mitzrayim changes according to each society. In one
society leaning may be considered hefkeirus [being chilled] and in another it may be
something which isn’t a contradiction to aimoh v’yiro [fear and trepidation].

Perhaps in a society such as where the tanoim lived, it was very normal to lean and
therefore there was nothing wrong for them to fulfill the mitzvah of sippur yetzias
Mitzrayim whilst leaning. In todays society however, where it’s not normal to lean, if one
leans whilst fulfilling the mitzvah of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim it’s a lack of aimoh v’yiro.

74
If it’s a lack of aimoh v’yiro to lean, how come we eat matzah whilst leaning? It must be
that originally it was not a lack of aimoh v’yiro to lean, and therefore, it was suitable to be
part of the mitzvah. By the matzah where the takonah is to do it that way we can’t change
the takonah but by the Haggadah perhaps the takonah wasn’t made as strongly and it
depends on the society one is in.

‫כל ימי חייך להביא לימות המשיח‬

In the ‫ אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה‬section of Haggadah we bring that the Chachomim
darshened ‫“ – כל ימי חייך‬all the days of your life” to include ‫“ – להביא לימות המשיח‬the days
of Moshiach”. The Gaon at his seder would say at this point: ‫“ – אין תקוה לנחש‬the snake
has no hope”.

In Parshas Bereishis the snake got cursed: ‫“ – ועפר תאכל כל ימי חייך‬dust you shall eat, all
the days of your life” (3:14). The Gaon was saying that if the expression ‫ כל ימי חייך‬comes
to include the days of Moshiach, then it will come out that the snake has no hope of ever
getting it’s legs back, and it will continue to eat dust even when Moshiach comes.

The difficulty is, by the curse given to man the pasuk also says, ‫כל ימי חייך‬, which according
to the above will mean, that man will have to toil to obtain food, even when Moshiach
comes, which is very difficult. R’ Chaim Kanievsky in his Haggadah asks the above.

‫ברוך המקום ברוך הוא‬

R’ Schwab in his only dvar Torah that he has on the Haggadah in his Mayon Beis Hashoeva
points out, that the expression “Hamokom” is used in a number of places and that there
is a common denominator between all the times it is used.

The expression “Hamokom” is used in tziduk hadin (when we show Hashem we are
satisfied with what he did, even though it doesn’t seem good). When Hashem seems to
be doing something disappointing then we refer to Him as “Hamokom”. Hashem is
everywhere, even when we have disappointments in life, and we have to use such
opportunities as a tool in serving Hashem as well.

We find most famously that we say: ‫“ – המקום ינחם אתכם בתוך שאר אבלי ציון‬Hamokom
(Hashem) should comfort you amongst the other mourners of Tzion”. We also have in
Berachos (16b) the expression: ‫“ – המקום ימלא לך חסרונך‬Hashem should give you back
what you lost.” There is also a Gemara in Shabbos (12b), that when someone has a tzorah
[tragedy] we say ‫“ – המקום ירחם‬Hashem should have mercy”. The idea behind using the
expression of Hamokom in all these places, is because we are saying that even though
things are very difficult and Hashem seems very distant, Hashem is everywhere and in
whatever situation one finds himself, he can use it as a tool to serve Hashem.

75
With this introduction, R’ Schwab explains why before we start the section of the
Haggadah that talks about the four different types of sons we say ‫ברוך המקום ברוך הוא‬.

When ones says the section of the Haggadah about the four types of sons, one hopes to
have a chochom or numerous chachomim sitting around his table, however, that is not
everyone’s lot in this world. Hashem gives different people different challenges. There are
some people who don’t have a chochom at the table, rather they have a son who is a tom
or sh’aino yoidai’a lishol or even lo aleinu a rosha. Some even unfortunately have no son
at all. How is one supposed to serve Hashem in such a situation?

‫ ברוך המקום ברוך הוא ברוך שנתן תורה לעמו ישראל ברוך הוא‬- “Blessed is Hamokom, blessed
be He, blessed is the one who gave the Torah to Klal Yisroel”.Hashem gave the Torah to
Klal Yisroel with instructions (‫)כנגד ארבעה בנים דברה תורה‬, whatever comes your way,
whatever life brings your way, Torah is there. Your disappointments in life are not outside
of the Ribbono Shel Olam. Your disappointments in life are also tools in serving Hashem.
If someone has a disappointment he should be able to look back at the end of his life and
say I dealt with it the way the Torah wanted me to deal with it.

‫ברוך המקום ברוך הוא‬, Hashem is Hamokom, Hashem is everywhere, Hashem is at every
seder table, no matter if there is disappointments, if there is excitement, if there are things
that you would rather be different. Whatever your table is, use it as a tool for serving
Hashem.
‫כנגד ארבעה בנים דברה תורה אחד חכם ואחד רשע ואחד תם ואחד שאינו‬
‫יודע לשאול‬
The Haggadah teaches that the Torah addresses four different types of children and
instructs us how to educate each of them about yetzias Mitzrayim. Specifically, we say
that the Torah discusses four sons: one who is wise, one who is wicked, one who is simple,
and one who does not know how to ask a question. Rav Nissan Alpert questions why the
Haggadah repeats the word, ‫“ – אחד‬one”, for each son, instead of more concisely stating:
‫?כנגד ארבעה בנים דברה תורה חכם רשע תם ושאינו יודע לשאול‬

Rav Alpert explains, that although it appears that we are talking about four different
children, in reality we are actually speaking about one child who has four different facets
to him. He suggests that this is alluded to by the fact that the numerical value of the word
‫( אחד‬13) multiplied by 4 (for the four times that this word is repeated) yields 52, which is
the numerical value of the word ‫( בן‬son), hinting to the fact that each child is comprised
of four different parts.

How can one person contain within him such disparate and even contradictory elements?
The answer is that children are still in their formative years and have not yet become
established in their identities. Although they have many strengths and talents, they also

76
have deficiencies. The parents job is to take each child, with his four different components,
and raise him in a manner that will transform his latent potential into future success and
accomplishments.

Where does the seder fit into this process? In advising us how to educate our children, the
Torah commands (Shemos 13:8) ‫(“ – והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא‬literally) you should say to your
son on that day (Pesach)”. However, the Avnei Nezer points out that the Targum renders
the word ‫ והגדת‬into Aramaic as ‫ואחוי‬, which means “to show.” In other words, the Targum
is telling us that the ideal form of “talking” to our children is not through words, but
through actions.

We must certainly speak to our children and instruct them how to behave, but that in and
of itself is insufficient. We must additionally show our children through our decisions and
our actions that we practice what we preach, just as the Haggadah specifies that the
mitzvah of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim can only be performed ‫בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מונחים‬
‫“ – לפניך‬at the time when you have matzah and maror placed before you” – as this enables
our children to see that we don’t just discuss the mitzvos in an abstract philosophical
sense, but that we actually perform them as well.

‫ואף אתה הקהה את שיניו‬

In one of the most famous sections of the Haggadah where we discuss the four types of
sons, we say about the rosha, ‫ואף אתה הקהה את שיניו‬. Most people understand this to
mean that we should knock out his teeth. However, ‫ הקהה‬is written with a ‘kuf’ and not
a ‘chof’, therefore, it means to blunt his teeth, blunt his sharpness and blunt his anger.
What is the idea of blunting his anger?

Rav Aharon Kotler used to say over the following incident. He often went with the
Kapishnitzer Rebbe collecting for chinuch atzmai. The two of them were known figures
really carrying the burden of chinuch atzmai in the early years of the yishuv in Eretz Yisroel.
Once the two of them came to a wealthy man’s office and the secretary said that he was
not in. They understood that the man was really there so they said that they would wait
for him to arrive. It became a waiting game and eventually the wealthy man gave up and
came out in a temper. He derided Rav Kotler and the Kapishnitzer Rebbe. He shouted at
them complaining how people always come to him for money without appointments and
they come to me whether I’m at home or I’m in the office. He berated them very harshly.
Rav Kotler winked to the Kapishnitzer Rebbe that he thinks it is time to leave. The
Kapishnitzer Rebbe motioned that they should stay. The man carried on and eventually
became quiet. The Kapishnitzer Rebbe turned to the wealthy man and said, you have given
us what we deserve now please give chunich atzmai what it deserves. The man mellowed
and gave a donation.

77
Blunting the rosha’s teeth means that we should blunt his anger, let his anger wear out.
Once we do this we will realize that underneath he’s not really such a big rosha. Don’t
disqualify someone so quickly as they may well be a good person underneath.

R’ Yisroel Reisman relates a remarkable incident that he once witnessed with R’ Moshe
Feinstein. Once R’ Moshe came into his yeshiva to give a shiur and walked into the Beis
HaMedrash. He walked halfway down the Beis HaMedrash from the entrance towards his
seat when a man sprang up and blocked his way and started screaming. The man was
screaming the following words believe it or not. He said “R’ Moshe, your son in law
paskened that I am a shoteh, pasken that I am not a shoteh”. He proceeded to holler and
repeat that over and over again really demonstrating to everyone there that he indeed
was a shoteh. Someone tried to move him away and he hit the person. He said to him
when the rosh yeshiva wants me to stop talking I will stop talking. Everyone that was there
was watching and holding their breath. R’ Moshe just looked the man in the face and as
the man kept on going R’ Moshe didn’t nod yes and he didn’t nod no he just waited and
eventually the man ran out of steam like a siren at the end of its calling. He quieted down
and his frustration ran out.

We see from here a very important lesson. Sometimes, when a person carries on it is best
just to be quiet. Let him spend his energy and eventually common sense will prevail.
‫“ – הקהה את שיניו‬blunt his teeth”, when someone speaks harshly take it easy, be calm
about it, and you will do well.

‫ושאינו יודע לשאול את פתח לו שנאמר והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא לאמר‬
In the arbah bonim section of Maggid we say about the ‫שאינו יודע לשאול‬, the son who is
unable to ask, ‫“ – והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא לאמר‬that you shall relate to him what happened
on that day”. The word ‫ לאמר‬seems to be spare. ‫ והגדת‬already means to say over to your
child, so what is the extra word ‫ לאמר‬coming to say?

The Beis Aharon a previous Stoliner Rebbe made a shidduch with another chasidishe
Rebbe. When they came together for the simcha they davened together. As you may
know, the Stoliner chassidim daven in a loud voice and it is a very unique davening. The
other Rebbe’s chassidim saw the way the Stoliner chassidim were davening and asked if
they should copy them. The Rebbe responded that if you are on that level then you can
copy them and if not then do not copy them. The Stoliner Rebbe responded it is just the
opposite. If you are on that level you don’t need to daven in that method, however, if you
are not on that level and your davening is not that significant, then daven in a loud voice
and do things in order that you should be on that level.

Rav Avigdor Miller when he went to Slabodka was much younger than his peers. He was
part of a mussar va’ad that met once a month to work on a specific middah. One month

78
someone suggested that they work on the middah of emes [truth]. Rav Miller said that
once an old baal mussar got up and said emes we work on all the time, this month let us
work on sheker. Let us work on lies to further our avodas Hashem. Everyone present was
puzzled and ask what does it mean to work on sheker? R’ Miller explained that we will say
we are ovdei Hashem, we will say that we are eating l’sheim Shomayim, we will say that
we are davening l’sheim Shomayim and we will say we are going to learn late. We will
keep on saying things that may or may not actually be so. By repeating it all the time, we
ourselves will hear it and it will be ingrained in us and ultimately we will reach that level.
Rabbi Miller used this as a tool in avodas Hashem and he encouraged people to use this
middah.

Whichever story you like better, this is an explanation of ‫והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא לאמר‬. The
extra ‫ לאמר‬teaches us, that we just have to say it to the son. You might not be holding on
the madreiga [level], but it’s ok it doesn’t matter, ‫לאמר‬, just be a person who constantly
says it. If you constantly say it, then you are going to do it and will eventually reach the
madreiga. (R’ Yisroel Reisman)

‫בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מנחים לפניך‬

There is a moshul brought down in the name of the Bnei Yissaschar which explains the
symbolism of: ‫[“ – בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מנחים לפניך‬that one is supposed to fulfill the
mitzvah of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim] whilst there is matzah and maror in front of him”.

The Bnei Yissaschar told a story of a wealthy man who had a daughter as an only child.
When it came time for her to find a shidduch, he went to look for a talmid chochom for his
daughter. He traveled to a yeshiva where the rosh yeshiva informed him of an
extraordinary talmid of the yeshiva who was very matzliach [successful] in his learning.
This man came from a very poor family, however, the wealthy man said that it didn’t
matter as he was prepared to support the young man. He met with him and spoke to him
in learning and was very impressed. He took the young man back home to meet his future
machutonim. The wealthy man met his future machutonim and said he is prepared to
make the teno’im [engagement]. The poor man said I am sorry, but I have nothing to make
a lechaim with; I only have some old bread. The wealthy man said ok let us each make a
berachah on the old bread and we will make a lechaim to celebrate the shidduch.
Subsequently, the wealthy man asked his new eidim [son in law] for one of his old shirts
so that he could take it to a tailor to get some new shirts made for him.

The chosson got married and moved into the town of the wealthy father in law. There
came a point in time some years later that there was friction between the father in law
and son in law. The father in law had prepared for just such a moment and took out the
old ripped shirt that he had taken to the tailor to make new ones with and said to his son

79
in law; don’t forget from where you come, you are dependent on me and listen to what I
tell you. Not to be outdone, the son in law pulls out of his pocket some old dried out bread.
The son in law said, remember how much you wanted me for a son in law that you even
made a lechaim with this? They looked at each other and remembered how much each
side wanted the other and embraced lovingly.

The ‫“ – מצה ומרור מנחים לפניך‬matzah and maror that we have in front of us on seder night”
represents the same idea. The Ribbono Shel Olam says, look at the maror, look what I
redeemed you from, such a difficult time. Then Klal Yisroel show Hashem the matzah and
say, Ribbono Shel Olam, you wanted us to rush out of Mitzrayim so fast that we couldn’t
even prepare bread, instead we took out this dry piece of matzah. The dry piece of matzah
is a symbol of how much Hakadosh Baruch Hu desired us. The matzah and maror
represents the love between Klal Yisroel and the Ribbono Shel Olam.

‫ ואת ערום ועריה‬... ‫צא ולמד‬

In the tzei ulmad section of Maggid where we bring and expound on the pasuk ‫ארמי עובד‬
‫אבי‬, we darshen on the word ‫ ורב‬that ‫ואת ערום ועריה‬, that when the Yidden left Mitzrayim
they were bare of the proper mitzvos and zechusim needed to leave Mitzrayim. Hakadosh
Boruch Hu gave Klal Yisrael two mitzvos involving blood and in that zechus they were able
to leave Mitzrayim. The two mitzvos were dam milah [blood of bris milah] and dam korban
Pesach [blood of the korban Pesach]. Hashem said because of the blood you will live.

The Sanzer Rov had a son who was an extraordinary kanoi [zealot]. Kanoim have an
expression they say about people they see as evil (rashoim), that it is a mitzvah to bury
them. One year at the seder, the Sanzer Rov said, we are told that Klal Yisroel on the night
of makkas bechoros had no zechusim [merits] with which to leave Mitzrayim which is the
reason they were commanded with dam Pesach and dam milah.

The Sanzer Rov asked, the makkah of choshech preceded makkas bechoros, and during
makkas choshech the reshoim of Klal Yisroel died (80% of the Yidden died). So what does
it mean that they didn’t have a mitzvah or zechus with which to leave Mitzrayim with,
didn’t those reshoim need a proper burial. There was a 4 to 1 ratio of people who died, so
surely the remaining Yidden had the zechus of burying the reshoim?

From here we see said the Sanzer Rov that it is not such a great mitzvah to bury a rosha.
The Sanzer Rebbe’s son responded that this is only a proof that it is not a mitzvah to bury
dead reshoim, however, reshoim who are alive, it may be a mitzvah to bury them.

On this same section of the Haggadah, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman asks, the Yidden had
to go out of Mitzrayim as Hashem had promised the avos that he would take them out of
Mitzrayim. Therefore, it had to happen in the zechus of the avos. It says in the pasuk

80
(Shemos 2:25) ‫וידע אלקים‬, that Hashem remembered his promise to the avos. So what
does it mean ‫ואת ערום ועריה‬, that they were missing zechusim and mitzvos with which to
go out?

Rav Shteinman answers, that even if a person has zechusim from previous generations, if
he doesn’t relate to them then he doesn’t have the zechus. He has to connect to his
ancestor’s zechusim in order from them to work for him.

He brings Loit when he left Sedom as an example, he only left because of the zechus that
he took in orchim [guests]. He took in the malochim who he thought were people as
guests. The Gemara in Sotah asks why Loit was saved and it gives several reasons. Either
bizchus Avrohom or in the zechus that he guarded the secret that Sorah was Avrohom’s
wife when Avrohom said that Sorah was his sister in order to save himself from being
executed. So Loit already had zechusim, why did he need the zechus that he took in guests?

Rav Shteinman answers, that Loit may have been saved in the zechus of Avrohom, but he
had to connect to the zechus. By connecting to Avrohom Avinu, Loit can go out. When Loit
took orchim into his home, he certainly did so because he was trained by Avrohom Avinu
and he was connecting to Avrohom Avinu and therefore, the zechus of Avrohom Avinu
was able to help him.

The same thing here. When Klal Yisroel had to be saved on the night of makkas bechoros,
they still had to be connected to their avos in order to benefit from their zechusim. This
is the reason why they were given specifically the mitzvos of milah and Pesach, two
mitzvos which find Avrohom Avinu also performed. Milah is written clearly in the pasuk
and korban Pesach Rashi alludes to in Parshas Vayeira. By doing milah and bringing the
korban Pesach, Klal Yisroel were connecting back to Avrohom Avinu and by connecting
back they had the zechus with which to go out.

Another example is when Klal Yisroel came to the Yam Suf and Nachshon had to jump in,
in order for Klal Yisroel to be saved. Hashem planned on saving them, but something had
to be done to merit the zechus of being saved and that mesiras nefesh of Nachshon was
the zechus.

‫מלמד שהיו ישראל מצוינים שם‬

We darshen in the Haggadah that Klal Yisroel in Mitzrayim were matzuyonim. What does
it mean they were matzuyonim? It means that Klal Yisroel stood out, they were noticeable,
and they were distinctive. The difficulty is, Klal Yisroel were on the 49th level of tumah,
what distinctiveness could possibly be praiseworthy of Klal Yisroel?

81
We see from here a big lesson. No one is perfect, we all have a yetzer horah and at some
time or another most people do aveiros. However, there are two types of reactions to a
person who realizes that he has a yetzer horah and that he is doing an aveirah. There is
one group of people who do aveiros and because of that they rationalize and they say oh
you don’t really have to keep the Torah, it is not so important. There is another group
however, who do aveiros, but they realize that what they are doing is wrong, however,
they had a strong tievos [desire] and they couldn’t hold themselves back. There is a very
big difference between the two groups.

Those Yidden who were in Mitzrayim who did aveiros and fell to the 49th level of tumah,
had they become like the Mitzriyim and started to dress and talk like the Mitzriyim then
they would have pulled themselves away from Klal Yisroel forever, like what happened
later with the Greeks. The Misyavnim became like the Greeks and disappeared from Klal
Yisroel forever.

‫ מלמד שהיו ישראל מצוינים שם‬means, that even when Klal Yisroel did aveiros, they didn’t
change their dress code, they didn’t change their names and they didn’t even change the
way they spoke, they stayed metzuyanim. It is important, even when a person has a
weakness in avodas Hashem that the way he dresses and the way he talks and his
mannerisms should stay like that of ben Torah. Many bnei Torah who go through difficult
times throw away the levush, the dress of a ben Torah because they don’t see themselves
as bnei Torah. They rationalize and say that it doesn't matter. True, if a person is an
absolutely successful oved Hashem then it doesn't matter. However, when a person is
struggling it is very important that a person affirm that he is very much connected to the
bnei Torah of the world. If he stays connected then it is much easier for him to come back.

In one of R’ Moshe’s Teshuvos he says something truly amazing. He writes that if you have
a shul which is a conservative or reform shul and it has a mechitzah, the men and women
are separate, and it does everything according to halachah but it is labeled a conservative
shul, then it is not considered a shul, it is for all intensives purposes a temple. It is a place
of apikursos. On the other hand if you have a place that is labeled as an orthodox shul, a
frum shul and there is no mechitzah, they are sitting in ways they shouldn't be and they
are doing aveiros, the building is still considered a shul. What is the difference?

The shul is labeled orthodox. People have tievos, people have desires and that does not
make it not a shul. If it’s labeled reform, conservative, catholic, Muslim then it is not a shul.
The label matters. ‫מלמד שהיו ישראל מצוינים שם‬, teaches us that we have to realize who
we are, one has to remember he is a ben Torah. One has to remember that he is a talmid
chochom, and that he has aspirations. Don’t let go of it. The lesson of ‫מלמד שהיו ישראל‬

82
‫ מצוינים שם‬is that one has to stay with the attitude of a ben Torah no matter where in the
world he may be found at the moment.

‫ויענונו כמה ּשנאמר וישימו עליו שרי מסים למען ענותו בסבלתם‬
‫ויבן ערי מסכנות לפרעה את פתם ואת רעמסס‬
The Gemara in Sotah (11a) explains that the names of the cities Pisom and Ra’amses allude
to the fact that the earth underneath them was completely unsuitable for building, and
whatever the Jewish slaves built there was immediately destroyed by the unstable ground.
Pisom is short for ‫“ – פי תהום בולעו‬the opening of the depths of the earth would swallow
it” and Ra’amses stands for ‫“ – ראשון ראשון מתרוסס‬one building after another would
collapse”. If Pharaoh had an entire nation available to serve him as slaves, wouldn’t it have
been more sensible to have them work in a location where they could build beautiful
palaces that would bring honour to his kingdom?

Rav Pam answers, that no matter how difficult a person’s task may be, he is still able to
feel good about his work as long as he perceives a purpose in his efforts. If Pharaoh had
put the Jews to work building splendid edifices, even though they would never be allowed
to set foot in them, they would feel a sense of purpose in their suffering and would take
pride in the fruit of their labors. The diabolical Pharaoh was willing to forego all benefits
to his kingdom from working them under more suitable conditions in order to afflict them
with crushing harshness.

A practical application of this concept may be derived from a story involving a

contemporary Rabbi whose son was born prematurely and severely underweight. The
doctors and nurses in the hospital went beyond the call of duty, putting in tremendous
efforts over the course of two months until the baby was finally healthy enough to return
home with his grateful parents.

The Rabbi searched far and wide for an appropriate gift for the medical staff to express
his appreciation, but he could not find anything suitable. In frustration, he turned to his
mentor, Rav Elya Svei, who explained that the doctors did not need any more fountain
pens or paperweights. He suggested that each year on the baby’s birthday, the Rabbi
should bring his son to the hospital to show the doctors and nurses the fruit of their
efforts.

So many times medical professionals put in tremendous energy fighting what they know
to be an uphill battle, only to become dejected when they lose more often than not. Rav
Svei suggested that the best gift would be to strengthen them by reminding them that
their efforts make a difference and are eternally remembered and appreciated.

83
While most of us hopefully have not had extensive interactions with the hospital staff, we
have all benefited greatly from the large amounts of time and energy invested in our
education and upbringing by our parents and teachers. It behooves us to give them the
sense of satisfaction and accomplishment they deserve by regularly letting them know
what a difference they made in our lives and how appreciated they are.

‫עשר מכות‬
‫דם‬
After the makkah [plague] of dam [blood] the pasuk says: ‫ויפן פרעה ויבא אל ביתו ולא שת‬
‫“ – לבו‬Pharaoh turned away and went home, and he did not pay any attention” (Shemos
7:23). In explaining why Pharaoh did not pay any attention to the makkah of dam, the
Meshech Chochmah notes the Medrash’s remark (Shemos Rabbah 9:10) that Bnei Yisroel
became wealthy during the makkah of dam, as the Mitzriyim whose water became blood
had to now buy water from Bnei Yisroel. The Meshech Chochmah asserts that Pharaoh
had already “paid” by having raised Moshe in his home like a prince, and therefore, the
makkah of dam did not strike Pharaoh’s home.

We see from here how far the obligation of hakoras hatov [gratitude] extends. Pharaoh
was unspeakably cruel, and yet, he was owed a debt of gratitude for raising Moshe in his
home. The only reason why Moshe ended up being raised in Pharaoh’s home was because
of Pharaoh’s horrific decree to drown all the newborn boys among Bnei Yisroel, as a result
of which Moshe was placed in the river and then found and adopted by Pharaoh’s
daughter. Were it not for this decree, Moshe would have been raised by his own parents
in his own home.

It emerges, then, that Pharaoh was owed a debt of gratitude for something he did which
was the result of his inhumane cruelty. This is comparable to a kidnapper who raised a
child he kidnapped in his home for several years. We would never imagine that he should
be appreciated for feeding and caring for the child during those years. Similarly, we would
not have imagined that Pharaoh deserved gratitude for raising Moshe. But nevertheless,
since, when all is said and done, Moshe Rabbeinu grew up in Pharaoh’s home, gratitude
was in order, and so Pharaoh did not suffer the makkah of dam.

[Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman wonders whether other Egyptian’s were able to come to the
royal palace to receive water, or whether the water was restricted to Pharaoh and his
family.

The Matamei Yaakov questions the Meshech Chochmah’s explanation, pointing out that
every Egyptian who ever did an act of kindness for a Jew should have been exempt from

84
the makkah based on this logic. Instead, he suggests that only money paid by the Egyptians
after the plague commenced was sufficient to spare them.]

‫צפרדע‬
The Gemara in Pesochim (53b) relates that the righteous Chananya, Mishoel, and Azarya
allowed themselves to be thrown into a fiery oven rather than flee or bow down to
Nevuchadnezzar’s idolatrous statues. The Gemara explains that they derived the propriety
of their conduct from the frogs in Mitzrayim. They reasoned that if the frogs, which did
not have a mitzvah to die al kiddush Hashem, nevertheless willingly entered the Egyptians’
hot ovens, they, who had such a mitzvah, should certainly be willing to perform it by being
thrown into the burning furnace rather than transgress or flee.

The Shagas Aryeh questioned the above kal v’chomer. Although it is true that the frogs
did not have a mitzvah to make a kiddush Hashem, they were commanded to jump into
various places, one of them being the ovens. If so, how could Chananya, Mishoel, and
Azarya derive a source for their actions from the frogs when they did not have any similar
explicit instructions to enter the fiery oven?

At the age of seven, the Vilna Gaon answered that the pasuk simply states that there must
be some frogs in each of these locations. However, no individual frog was commanded to
enter any specific place. Therefore, every single frog could have exempted itself from
entering the ovens with the claim that it would infest a more comfortable location and
leave the ovens for the other frogs.

From the fact that we nevertheless find that individual frogs were willing to enter the
ovens even though they were not explicitly commanded to do so, Chananya, Mishoel, and
Azarya were able to derive the propriety of their actions. Upon hearing this clever answer,
the excited Shagas Aryeh picked up the young Vilna Gaon and kissed him on the forehead.

Applying this brilliant insight on a practical level, the Darchei Mussar notes that many
times a teacher, parent, or communal organization asks for volunteers to assist with a
project or act of kindness. Not a single hand goes up as each person excuses himself with
the thought that somebody else can do it. The Vilna Gaon teaches that we must learn from
the frogs to take responsibility to personally see to it that the job gets done properly.

‫צפרדע‬
Hashem could have chosen from many different species in the animal kingdom to carry
out the makkoh of tzefardea [frogs], how come he chose to use frogs?

85
The Tolner Rebbe brings various different maamoray Chazal [statements of Chazal] and
by delving into these maamoray Chazal we will be able to understand what is unique
about frogs over all other animals.

The Medrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Vo’eira 182) explains that the word ‫צפרדע‬, frog, is an
acronym for, ‫“ – ציפור שיש לו דעה‬a bird that has intelligence.” Obviously frogs cannot be
considered intelligent relative to human standards, but from Chazal’s enigmatic
statement we can deduce that there is a certain aspect of understanding that frogs have
that we need to take notice of and appreciate.

The Zohar Hakodosh (Pinchos 232b) tells us a fascinating anecdote that reveals one aspect
of the power of understanding that frogs have. The Zohar tells us that Dovid HaMelech
was once walking next to a river and he said, “Ribbono Shel Olam, is there anyone in the
world who praises his Master as I do?” He then encountered a frog who told him, “Dovid,
do not be haughty for I do more than you! I turned myself over to be killed for Hashem’s
will, as it says, ‘and the Nile swarmed with frogs…, and additionally, I praise Hashem day
and night without stopping, and for every praise that I say I add to it three thousand
parables!” Dovid Hamelech accepted the rebuke of the frog and composed the words of
Tehillim: ‫“ – ה׳ לא גבה לבי ולא רמו עיני‬Hashem, my heart was not haughty nor did I uplift
my eyes” (131:1).

There is another Medrash cited in the introduction to Perek Shirah which discusses the
encounter between Dovid HaMelech and the frog, which says that the frog told Dovid,
“Do not be haughty because I am involved in a great mitzvah [which you are not]. There
is a certain creature that lives on the lakeshores whose only sustenance is from eating
aquatic life. When he is hungry he takes me and eats me. This is my mitzvah, as it says:
‫“ – האכלהו לחם אם רעב שונאך‬if your enemy is hungry, feed him bread” (Mishlei 21:25).

From both these versions of the encounter it becomes clear that in its nature the frog has
a deep understanding of the value of giving to others which translates into an ability to
give of itself for others to the extent that it is even willing to give its life to fulfill the will
of others, whether it be to fulfill Hashem’s will that there be a plague, or to sustain a
predator who is hungry.

With this we can appreciate the depth of what it says in Perek Shirah, that the song that
the frogs sing to Hashem is comprised of the words: ‫– ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד‬
“Praised be the name of Hashem’s majesty forever.” The words of the shirah that each
species sings, reveals the essence of that particular species, and that being so, it is fitting
that the frogs who are able and willing to give their lives for others should sing “boruch
sheim …” the ultimate expression of one’s desire to live their life in order to fulfill the will
of Hashem and glorify His name.

86
According to this we can explain that the frogs, the epitome of self-sacrifice, were sent to
punish Pharaoh as he was the embodiment of egocentricity, who saw others as nothing
but tools to fulfill his will, as is evident from the fact that he slaughtered Jewish babies in
order to bathe in their blood in an attempt to cure his skin disease, and from the many
other horrific decrees that he enacted to torture and suppress the Jewish nation.

‫דבר‬
‫“ – ויעש ד׳ את הדבר הזה ממחרת וימת כל מקנה מצרים וממקנה בני ישראל לא מת אחד‬Hashem
sent the plague of pestilence and all the animals of the Egyptians died, and from the
animals of Bnei Yisroel, not one died” (Shemos 9:6).

‫“ – וישלח פרעה והנה לא מת ממקנה ישראל עד אחד ויכבד לב פרעה ולא שלח את העם‬Pharaoh
sent, behold not more than one animal from Bnei Yisroel died, and he hardened his heart
and refused to send out the people” (Shemos 9:7).

The Vilna Gaon is bothered by several apparent inconsistencies in the Torah’s description
of the damage done by the makkah of dever [pestilence]. Initially, the Torah states that
not a single animal belonging to the Jews died. However, the wording of the second pasuk
indicates that although not more than one Jew lost animals, one Jew did indeed suffer at
the hands of the plague. Additionally, the first pasuk discusses “the animals of Bnei
Yisroel,” while the latter refers simply to “the animals of Yisroel.”

Finally, as difficult as Pharaoh’s actions throughout this entire period are difficult to
understand, there is generally some minimal logic to his stubbornness. Here, however, the
Torah seems to indicate that hearing that the plague did not affect the animals of the Jews
somehow caused him to further harden his heart, which seems quite counter-intuitive.

The Vilna Gaon brilliantly resolves all these difficulties with a single piece of information.
Rashi writes (Shemos 2:11) that one of the Egyptian taskmasters set his eyes on a Jewish
woman by the name of Shalamis bas Divri. One night he ordered her husband out of the
house and entered pretending to be him, and a child was born from that union. However,
the Ramban (Vayikra 24:10) quotes an opinion that before the Torah was given, a person’s
nationality was determined by his father. If so, the son of the taskmaster and Shalamis
was considered a non-Jew.

Although the first pasuk states that among Bnei Yisroel, which refers to proper Jews, no
animals died, the animals of Shalamis’s son were indeed stricken together with those of
the Egyptians. It is to his animals that the second pasuk refers in hinting that one Jew –
somebody viewed as a Jew even though in reality he was not – was afflicted. Upon hearing
the news that the Jews were not completely spared from the makkoh, Pharaoh attributed

87
the entire episode to one big coincidence, and not surprisingly, he hardened his heart and
refused to free the Jews.

‫ברד‬
‫ויט משה את מטהו על השמים וד׳ נתן קלת וברד ותהלך אש ארצה וימטר ד׳ ברד על ארץ מצרים‬
– “Moshe held out his rod toward the sky, and Hashem sent thunder and hail, and fire
streamed down to the ground, as Hashem rained down hail upon the land of Mitzrayim”
(Shemos 9:23).

When the Torah describes how the makkoh of borad [hailstones] came about, it uses two
different verbs. First it says that Hashem ‫( נתן‬placed) the thunder and hail, followed by
‫( וימטר‬He caused it to rain down) which seems both imprecise and redundant. Seemingly,
‫ וימטר‬is the appropriate verb to describe the falling hail. What were the two distinct
components of this makkoh to which the Torah refers, and in what sense did Hashem
“place” the borad more than the other makkos that preceded it?

Rashi writes (9:18) that Moshe made a scratch on the wall of Pharaoh’s palace and warned
him that when the sun reaches the mark the following day, Mitzrayim will be struck by
borad. This is surprising, as hail is normally preceded by a cloudy, overcast sky, which
would prevent the sun’s rays from penetrating through onto Pharaoh’s wall. The Malbim
explains that makkas borad featured multiple miracles, the first of which was that at the
exact moment that the sun shone through a clear, cloudless sky and hit the scratch on the
wall, a flurry of hail-laden clouds immediately rushed in and covered the entire country.

Further, according to the laws of nature, objects pulled to earth by gravity accelerate at a
rate of 32 feet per second. Sound travels faster, at roughly 1125 feet per second, while
the speed of light is a whopping 186,000 miles per second. Accordingly, the borad should
have fallen to the ground at a slower pace than the sound of the thunder that
accompanied it, while the fiery lightning that came with them at the speed of light should
have arrived before both of them. In reality, an additional miracle occurred in which the
lightening, thunder, and hail all traveled at the speed of light and struck Mitzrayim
simultaneously. The Torah alludes to this by stating that Hashem ‫ – נתן‬specially placed –
all three of them in the land at the exact same time.

After the initial strike, the remaining borad was eventually able to slow down and fall at
its usual speed, which is what the Torah refers to as the subsequent ‫ – וימטר‬raining down
in its customary manner.

The Ichud B’Chidud adds that the Malbim’s insight can help us understand why most of
the Mitzriyim were not afraid of the impending makkah (9:21) despite Moshe’s perfect
track record to date, for as long as they saw a sunny day without a single cloud in the sky,

88
they felt there was no reason to worry and take precautions against an imminent
hailstorm. (R’ Ozer Alport)

‫רבי יהודה היה נותן בהם סימנים‬

Many meforshim ask why the Haggadah found it significant that: ‫רבי יהודה היה נותן בהם‬
‫“ – סימנים‬Rabbi Yehuda would make an acrostic for the names of the ten plagues”,
referring to them by the words: ‫דצ״ך עד״ש באח״ב‬. Anybody is capable of taking the first
letters of the names of the makkos [plagues] to form an acrostic. Why is it important to
know that this was done by Rabbi Yehuda? Additionally, we must understand why the
Haggadah tells us that Rabbi Yehuda ‫ – היה נותן‬would frequently use this acrostic?

The Tolner Rebbe suggests an answer based on what we know of Rabbi Yehuda from a
story told in the Gemara in Shabbos (33b). Rabbi Yehuda was once sitting with two other
tanno’im, and they were speaking about the Roman government. The conversation began
with Rabbi Yehuda praising the Romans for their accomplishments, building markets and
bridges. Rabbi Yossi remained silent, and Rabbi Shimon voiced his disagreement, saying
that the Romans built everything only for their own benefit and grandeur. Word got back
to the Roman authorities of this meeting, and they promptly ordered that Rabbi Yossi be
exiled and Rabbi Shimon be executed. Rabbi Yehuda, who spoke admiringly of the
Romans, was given a prestigious public position. It thus turns out that Rabbi Yehuda had
close ties with the cruel and evil Roman government.

There is a tradition taught by tzadikim that the names of the makkos have the power to
bring a curse upon evil enemies of the Jewish People. When an especially righteous person
utters the name of a makkoh with a certain dangerous enemy in mind, the plague will
befall that wicked person. Now Rabbi Yehuda, who spent his time among the Roman
officials, could not explicitly say the name of a makkoh, as he might be heard placing a
curse and thus punished. And so instead, ‫“ – היה נותן בהם סימנים‬he would place upon
them (‫)בהם‬, the wicked enemies of the Jews, ‫ – סימנים‬subtle reference to the plagues in
order to curse them.

The word ‫ סימן‬is often used to mean a non-explicit reference to something, and can also
be used to mean something that leaves an impact on somebody or someone. For example,
the Gemara in Zevochim (102a) comments that whenever the Torah speaks of Hashem’s
anger with the term ‫חרון אף‬, we find His anger having some impact (‫)נאמר בו רושם‬, and
Rashi explains “impact” to mean: ‫“ – סימן מה של חרון אף‬some sign of anger”. Thus, ‫רבי‬
‫ יהודה היה נותן בהם סימנים‬means, that R’ Yehuda would strike the cruel enemies of the
Jewish People by subtly alluding to the makkos, since he could not say their names
directly.

89
Some tzadikim would recite this passage of the Haggadah – ‫רבי יהודה היה נותן בהם סימנים‬,
with particular intensity and enthusiasm. The Tolner Rebbe relates, that his grandfather
(previous Tolner Rebbe) would show great emotion when reciting this section, reading it
in a special melody and with motions that he received from his sacred forebears. The
explanation might be that in past generations, when Jewish communities came under the
threat of their vicious enemies, and they were too frightened to say the names of the
plagues directly to place a curse upon these enemies, they would instead recite the
acrostic ‫ דצ״ך עד״ש באח״ב‬to bring a curse upon those who threatened them.

This applies as well to all the forces of tumah that work to lead Am Yisroel to sin, and
throughout the generations have posed an ongoing spiritual threat. They do not allow us
to have the proper intentions to place a curse on them, and so our strategy is to use the
acrostic so they do not realize that we are attempting to curse. We can achieve great
things by reciting these words, destroying the forces of tumah, bringing upon them all the
curses described in the Torah, and subjugating them to the forces of kedusha. (Tolner
Rebbe)

‫מצה זו שאנו אוכלים על שום מה‬

In the Rabban Gamliel section of Maggid, we explain the reasons for why we eat the
korbon Pesach (when the Beis HaMikdosh was around), matzah and maror. The korbon
Pesach was eaten because Hashem passed over the houses of the Yidden when smiting all
the firstborn Mitzriyim and spared the Yidden. We eat matzah because when the Yidden
left Mitzrayim they left in such a rush, that they didn’t have time to bake their dough.
Finally we eat maror to remind us of the bitter slavery.

The question is, in Mitzrayim the Yidden also ate korbon Pesach before chatzos. In
Mitzrayim when the Yidden ate korbon Pesach what did they say, we say “because
Hashem jumped over our homes and saved us”, but what did they say, it hadn’t yet
happened? When we eat matzah we say “to remind us that Hashem rushed us out of
Mitzrayim so quickly, that the dough didn’t have time to rise”, but what did they say in
Mitzrayim, it hadn’t yet happened?

The answer is written in the Chumash (Shemos 12:27): ‫ואמרתם זבח פסח הוא לה׳ אשר פסח‬
‫“ – על בתי בני ישראל במצרים בנגפו את מצרים ואת בתינו הציל‬You shall say, ‘It is the korbon
Pesach to Hashem, who passed over the houses of Bnei Yisroel in Mitzrayim when smiting
the Mitzriyim, but saved our houses’”. Before it actually happened they were commanded
to eat korbon Pesach and they said “this Pesach we are eating, is because Hashem will be
jumping over our homes and saving us.” They said the same thing that we do, even though
it hadn’t yet happened.

90
The Seforno speaks out, that they had to say already then what was going to happen in
the future. Pesach is a night of emunah and even before Klal Yisroel had been saved they
had to thank Hashem for saving them. They ate with perfect faith that what was foretold
was going to happen.

‫מצה זו שאנו אוכלים על שום מה … עד שנגלה עליהם מלך מלכי המלכים‬

‫הקדוש ברוך הוא‬
In the Rabban Gamliel section of the Haggadah we say: ‫מצה זו שאנו אוכלים על שום מה על‬
‫שום שלא הספיק בצקם של אבותינו להחמיץ עד שנגלה עליהם מלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא‬
‫וגאלם שנאמר ויאפו את הבצק אשר הוציאו ממצרים עגת מצות כי לא חמץ כי גרשו ממצרים ולא יכלו‬
‫“ – להתמהמה וגם צדה לא עשו להם‬This matzah that we are eating, for the sake of what [is
it]? In order to commemorate that our ancestors' dough was not yet able to rise, before
the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed [Himself] to them and
redeemed them, as it is says (Shemos 12:39): “And they baked the dough which they
brought out of Mitzrayim into matzah cakes, since it did not rise; because they were
expelled from Mitzrayim, and could not tarry, neither had they made for themselves
provisions.”

This section of the Haggadah is one of the most important parts of the Haggadah, the
halachah is that if women are busy in the kitchen preparing the meal, they have to come
inside at this point and make sure to listen.

R’ Avrohom ben HaGra in his sefer Geulas Avrohom makes an amazing diyuk. The Baal
Haggadah says: We eat matzah to commemorate: ‫שלא הספיק בצקם של אבותינו להחמיץ‬
‫“ –עד שנגלה עליהם מלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא וגאלם‬that our ancestors' dough was
not yet able to rise, before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He,
revealed [Himself] to them and redeemed them”, and he learns this from the pasuk: ‫ויאפו‬
‫את הבצק אשר הוציאו ממצרים עגת מצות כי לא חמץ כי גרשו ממצרים ולא יכלו להתמהמה וגם צדה‬
‫“ – לא עשו להם‬And they baked the dough which they brought out of Mitzrayim into matzah
cakes, since it did not rise; because they were expelled from Mitzrayim, and could not
tarry, neither had they made for themselves provisions”. Asks R’ Avrohom ben HaGra,
where do we see in the pasuk that Hashem the King of kings redeemed them? All the
pasuk says is that their dough didn’t have time to become chometz, however, we don’t
see any mention of Hashem appearing to Klal Yisroel and redeeming them?

R’ Avrohom ben HaGra answers, that on the contrary, the above is very meduyak in the
pasuk. The truth is, if we analyze the pasuk we will see that there is a double expression,
the pasuk says: ‫“ – כי גרשו ממצרים ולא יכלו להתמהמה‬because they were expelled from
Mitzrayim, and could not tarry”. Surely if Klal Yisroel were expelled and driven out from
Mitzrayim, they weren’t able to tarry, so what is the pasuk adding by saying, ‫ולא יכלו‬

91
‫“ – להתמהמה‬and they could not tarry”, the pasuk seems to be saying the same thing
twice?

R’ Avrohom ben HaGra explains, that it’s not a double expression and there are two
separate things going on in the pasuk. 1) That we were driven out and 2) We weren’t able
to delay.

The Gemara in Berachos (9a) says that by yetzias Mitzrayim there was two chipozan’s
[rushes to leave], the chipozan of the Mitzriyim and the chipozan of Klal Yisroel. The
Mitzriyim were desperate to send out Klal Yisroel as it says: ‫ותחזק מצרים על העם למהר‬
‫“ – לשלחם מן הארץ כי אמרו כלנו מתים‬The Mitzriyim were desperate to send out Klal Yisroel,
because they were all dying” (Shemos 12:33). This was the chipozan of the Mitzriyim,
however, there was also a chipozan of Klal Yisroel, Klal Yisroel were also desperate to
leave.

Simply we would understand, that Klal Yisroel were desperate to leave because they were
being driven out, R’ Avrohom ben HaGra explains, however, that it was a different type of
chipozan entirely, it was a chipozan of ‫לא יכלו להתמהמה‬, they simply couldn’t wait any
longer, ‫נגלה עליהם מלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא‬, Hashem revealed himself to Klal
Yisroel that night and they were drawn after Him like iron drawn to a magnet. The reason
they couldn’t wait any longer wasn’t because they were being driven out, it was because
‫נגלה עליהם מלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא‬.

During yetzias Mitzrayim Hashem revealed Himself to Klal Yisroel, there was a giluy
Shecinah [revelation of the Divine Presence] as the Baal Haggadah brings on the pasuk:
‫“ – ויוצאנו ה׳ ממצרים ביד חזקה ובזרע נטויה ובמרא גדל ובאתות ובמפתים‬And Hashem took us
out of Mitzrayim with a strong hand and with an outstretched forearm and with great awe
and with signs and with wonders" (Devorim 26:8), ‫’“ – ובמורא גדל זו גלוי שכינה‬And with
great awe - this refers to the revelation of the Divine Presence”. Similarly the Targum says:
‫“ – ובחזוונא רבא‬there was a great revelation”. There was a giluy Shechinah and Klal Yisroel
were drawn after it, like iron to a magnet.

There was such a giluy Shechina, and ‫לא יכלו להתמהמה‬, the simply couldn’t wait anymore,
they just had to go after Hashem and ‫ – ולא יכלו להתמהמה וגם צדה לא עשו להם‬they left
without even making any preparations. What comes out is that there is no double
expression in the pasuk, and in fact they left Mitzrayim for two entirely different reasons,
1) The Mitzriyim drove them out and 2) At yetzias Mitzrayim there was a giluy Shechinah,
and Klal Yisroel were drawn after it, and they just couldn’t wait any longer.

92
This is why we eat matzah, we eat matzah for two reasons, firstly because Klal Yisroel
were driven out, and secondly, because Klal Yisroel were so desperate to leave and go
after Hashem.

Not drinking between third and fourth cup of wine

The Mishnah at the end of Pesochim (117b) says, that although we may consume
additional wine between the first three cups at the seder, it is forbidden to drink between
the third cup and fourth cup. Why is the period between the last two cups treated
differently? On a practical level, the Rashbam explains that we are afraid that a person
who drinks at this point may become drunk and unable to complete the recitation of
Hallel.

On a deeper level, the Imrei Emes notes that Rashi in Pesochim (99b) writes that the four
cups correspond to the four expressions of redemption mentioned in the Torah (Shemos
6:6-7): I will take you out, I will rescue you, I will redeem you, and I will take you to Me as
a nation. The first three terms refer to being freed from enslavement of the Mitzriyim,
while the last one applies to becoming servants of Hashem. In this sense, the prohibition
against drinking between the last two cups symbolizes that there can be no interruption
between working for the Mitzriyim and working for Hashem. There can be no point when
we are free of responsibility, for a time when we have no master or duties is a time of
danger.

Rav Yisroel Reisman suggests that the Torah alludes to this concept in instructing (Bereishis
2:24), “A man shall leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife, and they shall
become one flesh.” The Torah is telling us that the healthiest approach is to transition
directly from having obligations to parents to having obligations to a spouse, with no
interceding period of total freedom from responsibility, as those who live on their own
before marriage often struggle with the perceived loss of independence that comes with
sharing one’s life with a new spouse.

‫חסל סדור פסח‬

In the Nirtzah section of the Haggadah, we declare ‫חסל סדור פסח‬, which is normally
translated as, “We have completed the Pesach seder.” However, the verb ‫ חסל‬is normally
associated with ending something in the sense of destroying it, as in (Devorim 28:38) ‫כי‬
‫“ – יחסלנו הארבה‬for the locust will devour it”. Similarly, in modern Hebrew, the word ‫חסל‬
means “to assassinate.” Why do we use this unusual term that seems to imply the
destruction of the Pesach seder?

Rav Yisroel Reisman explains that in addition to proclaiming that we have successfully
finished the Pesach seder, we are also including a hidden tefillah that Hashem should

93
destroy the seder that we have today. We allude to our hope that this will be the last time
we have a seder in golus without the ability to eat the korban Pesach, as we beseech
Hashem to rebuild the Beis HaMikdosh and return the korban Pesach that we are
presently unable to offer, may it be speedily in our days.

‫ פודה כהלכה‬- ‫כי לו נאה כי לו יאה‬

One of the songs that we sing in the Nirtzah section of the Haggadah is the song ‫כי לו נאה‬
‫כי לו יאה‬. One of the things we mention is that Hashem is ‫“ – פודה כהלכה‬that Hashem
redeems according to halachah”. The question is, what does it mean that Hashem
redeems Klal Yisroel k’halachah? Which halachah?

The Imrei Emes explains the above using a Gemara in Kiddushin (22b). The Gemara
discusses the din of what happens to a slave that is owned by a ger [convert] who has no
relatives. When he dies, whatever he owns becomes hefker [ownerless]. If the ger were
to own a slave and then die, the slave becomes ownerless and he can reacquire himself.
The Gemara brings a story, that Mar Zutra wanted to take ownership of such a slave,
however, he realized that when the owner dies the slave will be hefker. As soon as he
becomes hefker the slave will own himself and become a free man and will no longer be
up for grabs. To avoid this, Mar Zutra asked the slave to carry something for him into his
house, so at the moment that the ger (owner of the slave) died the slave was working for
Mar Zutra. Since the slave was working for Mar Zutra at the time the original owner died,
the halachah is, that the slave becomes the slave of Mar Zutra.

‫פודה כהלכה‬, explains the Imrei Emes means that at the time of yetzias Mitzrayim, Hashem
told Klal Yisroel to carry the matzah out. ‫“ – עבדי הם אשר הוציאם מארץ מצרים‬My slaves
which I took out of Mitzrayim”. At the moment that the Mitzriyim were dying from makkas
bechoros and relinquishing ownership of the Yidden as slaves, the Yidden were working
for Hakadosh Boruch Hu by carrying the matzah. ‫ פודה כהלכה‬means, that at the moment
we were let free and could have taken possession of ourselves, Hashem made us carry
something for Him, as a result halachically we belong to him.

‫ל בנה בנה ביתך בקרוב‬-‫ל בנה א‬-‫במהרה במהרה בימינו בקרוב א‬

In the song ‫ל בנה‬-‫ א‬in the Nirtzah section of the Haggadah we daven that Hashem’s house,
i.e. the Beis HaMikdosh should be built ‫“ – במהרה בימינו‬speedily in our days”. I saw
brought down a pshat as to why we use specifically the expression of ‫במהרה בימינו‬.

In the tochochah it says, that if Klal Yisroel do aveiros: ‫“ – ואבדתם מהרה‬they will be
punished quickly”. The Gemara explains, that a day by Hakodosh Boruch Hu is 1,000 years
and ‫“ – במהרה‬speedily” by Hakodosh Boruch Hu is 850 years. We daven for the Beis
HaMikdosh to come ‫במהרה‬, however, according to Hakodosh Boruch Hu’s days it may be

94
as long as 850 years, therefore, we say ‫במהרה בימינו‬, that it should be speedily in terms
of our days as well.

We are asking for it to be built immediately, however, one isn’t allowed to build on Yom
Tov, therefore we ask ‫ל בנה בנה ביתך בקרוב‬-‫ל בנה א‬-‫א‬, that Hashem should build it, and
Hashem is allowed to build on Yom Tov.

‫בחור הוא גדול הוא למוד הוא‬

In the Nirtza section of the Haggadah we sing the song of ‫ל בנה‬-‫א‬, in which we attribute
22 titles to Hashem. Going in order of the aleph beis we attribute titles to Hashem. All of
the titles come from pasukim in Tanach except for one, the title for the letter lamed. By
lamed we say: ‫למוד הוא‬, that Hashem is learned. The Chasam Sofer in his Droshas writes
that it is an improper title. He goes so far as to call it mechareif umegadeif [blasphemy].
How can you say Hashem learns, learning implies a lack of knowledge! Hashem knows
everything. Therefore he says, it’s better not to say it. He suggests, that perhaps one
should say ‫“ – לוחם הוא‬Hashem fights” like we find in Shemos (15:3), ‫– ה׳ איש מלחמה‬
“Hashem, a man of fighting”.

Perhaps we can answer the Chasam Sofer’s question based on a well known yesod. There
is a well known yesod that Hashem paskens according to how Beis Din in this world pasken.
For example, since R’ Yehuda paskened that tevuah [produce] was judged on Rosh
Hashanah, even though in Shomayim there was no such hava amina as ‫בפסח על התבואה‬
– “On Pesach we are judged for tevuah”, Hashem will still follow the psak. Therefore, true
that Hashem knows everything and he isn’t lacking in any knowledge, but he continues to
learn and kavayochel [so to speak] in his great humility follows the psak from down here.

Not even the smallest amount of chometz

(The dvar Torah below is more of a shiur than a dvar Torah but it’s well worth going
through)

The Gemara in Pesochim (28a) which discusses the opinion of the Chachomim in the
Mishnah, that chometz does not need to be destroyed by burning, says as follows: “It was
asked, how [does one fulfill] this that is says, [that according to the Chachomim] one can
destroy chometz by either crumbling it and throwing it into the wind, or throwing it into
the sea. [Does it mean that] one must crumble it before one throws it to the wind [as well
as] when one throws it into the sea, or perhaps it is only necessary to crumble it before
throwing into the wind, however, when one throws it into the water there is no need to
crumble it first?”.

95
The Gemara attempts to compare this question to a similar question asked by the Gemara
regarding the obligation of destroying an idol where the question was also asked whether
throwing the idol into the sea requires crumbling beforehand or not. Rabbah responded
[to this comparison and said] that “it makes sense regarding an idol which must be thrown
specifically into the Dead Sea, that one need not crumble it, but chometz which may be
thrown into other rivers [or bodies of water], must be crumbled first.” Rav Yosef said, “on
the contrary, the opposite makes sense, as an idol, which does not disintegrate in the
water, must be crumbled first, but chometz, which will disintegrate in the water, does not
need to be crumbled first.”

Rashi explains that Rabbah requires the chometz to be crumbled before it is thrown into
the water to rule out the eventuality that a Jewish passenger aboard a ship might come
across the bread floating in the water and retrieve it from the water without thinking,
whereas in the case of the idol, it does not require crumbling beforehand because ships
do not sail on the Dead Sea.

The root of the machlokes

The Sefas Emes on this Gemara explains that his understanding is that the Torah is not
actually concerned with such an unlikely occurrence, but rather, that because such a thing
could technically happen, Rabbah held that the chometz would not be considered totally
destroyed and lost from the world, whereas Rav Yosef was of the opinion that if the
chometz was sufficiently ‘lost’ so that it would not be found under normal circumstances,
this would be considered a fulfillment of the mitzvah of biur chometz.

The Tolner Rebbe delves into what brought these amoraim to disagree and brings out a
lesson which can be applied to our avodas Hashem.

Similar ruling

There is another Gemara in Bava Kamma (102a) which discuses a similar ruling of Rabbah,
regarding someone who throws someone else’s coin into the sea. Rabbah rules that there
is no obligation to reimburse the loss of the coin because, as the Gemara says: “he can tell
[the other party, your coin] it is lying in front of you, if you want, go take it!”. Rashi explains
that this means that even though it is lying on the ocean floor, if the owner wanted to he
could hire a diver to retrieve it. We see that Rabbah ruled in a similar way here as he ruled
regarding chometz as he does not consider an item that has been thrown into the sea as
lost.

The Gemara adds that Rabbah only ruled in this way regarding a coin if it was thrown into
clear water, whereas in the event that it was thrown into cloudy water Rabbah holds the
person who threw it accountable, as in this case the coin is considered lost. Why do we

96
not see a similar differentiation regarding chometz, that if one throws the bread into
cloudy water he does not need to crumble it first, as it is considered lost as soon as it goes
under the surface?

Rav Yosef’s silence

Additionally, as this is another expression of Rabbah’s opinion regarding things that are
thrown into the water, we would expect Rav Yosef, who disagreed with him regarding
chometz, and felt that something that is thrown into the water is considered to be
destroyed, even if it could technically be retrieved, to disagree regarding this ruling as
well. Why then was Rav Yosef silent in this case, which seems to indicates that he agrees
with Rabbah’s ruling?

Rav Yosef

There are another two places where the Gemara mentions Rav Yosef that require
explanation. The Gemara in Bava Kamma (66b) discusses an unfinished hide which after
it was stolen and the original owner had already given up on ever having it returned. The
Gemara says that although generally, a thief must return a stolen object itself unless he
has made some kind of significant change in the object, in the case of the stolen hide, if
the thief decides to use it as a tablecloth so that it no longer requires any further
processing, it is considered as if the hide is now fully processed, and the thief acquires it
through changing it, and he is therefore only obligated to pay the value of the original
stolen hide instead of returning the actual object. The Gemara says: “This was a question
that Rabbah asked Rav Yosef for twenty two years, and it was not resolved until he [Rav
Yosef] was appointed Rosh Yeshiva, at which point he was able to explain it [and said that]
a change in name is similar to a physical change brought about by an action. What is the
reason [that one acquires] an object through a physical change? [This is because, for
example] originally it was wood, and now it has become vessels. So too here, originally it
was a hide and now it is a tablecloth.”

A man of truth

The Chiddushei Harim asks that this ruling of Rav Yosef seems to be exceedingly simple, as
any yeshiva bochur could have proposed such a distinction and said that if a person
managed to change the definition of an object by changing the way people relate to it, i.e.
its name, then this would be as relevant a change in its definition as if one were to
accomplish the change through physically altering the object. Why then did Rav Yosef have
such difficulty with this concept for so many years?

The Chiddushei Harim answers that although Rav Yosef was surely always aware of this
distinction and could easily have given this explanation to his talmidim, as a man of truth

97
he was wary to do so as long as he was not sure that it was really true, and he therefore
left the question open for 22 years. Once he was appointed Rosh Yeshiva and assumed
the mantle of leadership, he experienced a tremendous change in himself, and in his
spirituality. This personal experience which he felt after his own ‘change of name,’
convinced him of the truth of the concept that a change in a name alone can make a
significant change in the definition of an object.

Sinai or Oiker Horim

The other Gemara which discusses Rav Yosef, brings out another layer of depth to the
Chiddushei Harim’s explanation, according to how the Maharsha explains the Gemara.
The Gemara in Horiyos (14a) says that R’ Shimon Ben Gamliel and the Chachomim argued
whether it is preferable to be a talmid chochom who has vast knowledge in Torah and is
defined as ‘sinai’ or it is better to be a lamdan, a ‘oiker horim’ [uprooter of mountains].
The Gemara brings Rav Yosef as an example of someone who was a sinai as he knew many
Mishnayos and Beraisos, and Rabbah as an oiker horim, because although he did not have
the vast knowledge of Rav Yosef, he was nevertheless able to reach correct conclusions
through analyzing, comparing and contrasting different sugyos, as if he was uprooting
mountains and grinding them against each other.

This question was sent to the Chachomim of Eretz Yisroel who responded: “sinai is
preferable, as our master taught, everyone needs the owner of the wheat.”

It is unclear why the Gemara only referred to someone like Rav Yosef as ‘sinai’, as although
it is true that his knowledge of the Torah shebal peh [oral Torah] was very clear and
organized, so that it could be considered as if he had received it directly from Har Sinai,
the approach of Rabbah, ‘pilpul,’ the sharp and in-depth analysis of the Torah was also
given at Har Sinai, and is also an important part of the Torah.

Most humble

The Maharsha explains that the reason why the Gemara refers specifically to Rav Yosef as
sinai was because someone who is an expert in pilpul may come to rely on his own
intellectual prowess, whereas, someone who’s strength in Torah comes primarily from his
knowledge base will realize that his success in learning is not due to his own superior
qualities, but rather due to the gifts that he constantly receives from Hashem of
remembering the Torah. Such a person will generally retain a higher level of humility, as
he will remain more aware of his limitations than a person who reaches his conclusions
based on his powers of analysis. The Gemara therefore refers to Rav Yosef as ‘sinai’
because it alludes to the Gemara in Megillah (29a) which says that the Torah was given on
Har Sinai because it was the lowest and most humble of the mountains.

98
The Avnei Nezer elaborated on the humility of Rav Yosef, and his son quotes what he said
in his Shem Mishmuel (Shemini 5674). The Gemara at the end of Sotah (49b) writes, “when
Rebbi was niftar humility and the fear of sin ceased. Rav Yosef told the Tanna, do not teach
that humility ceased, for I am still alive!”. The Avnei Nezer explains that although such a
statement would not seem appropriate for someone who was truly humble, it was
possible for Rav Yosef to say such a thing because his humility stemmed from a recognition
that all of his positive attributes came from Hashem and were therefore nothing for him
to be haughty about. As such he was able to recognize that he was humble, as he would
not feel unduly proud of his humility either.

‫“ – כמה יוסף איכא בשוקא‬How many Yosef’s are out there in the market”

With this we can begin to understand that until Rav Yosef became Rosh Yeshiva he was of
the opinion that all of his success was due to the Torah that he knew, but that he,
personally, had not advanced at all spiritually over the years, much like Har Sinai, which
was the shortest mountain and whose only claim to fame was the fact that the Torah was
given on it. As such he was doubtful as to whether a change of name really would
constitute a change in the essence of an item, because although he was called a talmid
chocham by his generation, he still saw himself as the same Yosef he always had been, as
he used to say about the Yom Tov of Shavuos: “if not for this day [mattan Torah], how
many Yosef’s are in the market” (Pesochim 68b). It was only because of the Torah that he
was given that he was perceived as different from the other Yosef’s in the market.

Once he was promoted to being the Rosh Yeshiva and he suddenly felt himself infused
with new spiritual abilities that were given to him due to his leadership role and his
‘change of name,’ he finally concluded that a change in name could indeed show a change
in essence.

Before Rav Yosef was appointed Rosh Yeshiva

We can therefore suggest that the reason why Rav Yosef did not argue with Rabbah
regarding his ruling about a coin that was thrown into the sea, was because that dispute
was recorded before Rav Yosef was appointed Rosh Yeshiva, and at that time he still
agreed with Rabbah that changing a title alone was not sufficient. Therefore, in the case
of the coin, even if it were to be referred to by people as a ‘lost coin,’ as long as it could
technically be retrieved, this would still not constitute a marked change in the coin, and
as such the person who threw it into the sea would not be held liable, as it would be
considered as if nothing had actually happened to the coin.

Rav Yosef’s opinion regarding biur chometz however, was recorded after his appointment
as Rosh Yeshiva, and is already in line with the understanding that he reached after being

99
appointed, that a change in name does reflect on a change in essence, and as such,
chometz that is considered lost by most people and is therefore most accurately referred
to as ‘lost chometz,’ is no longer considered as belonging to the original owner.

The yetzer horah

According to this explanation, that Rabbah held that the change in name to ‘lost chometz’
is not adequate, we see that regarding chometz he was even more stringent than
regarding the loss of a coin thrown into the sea, as there he agreed that if it had fallen into
cloudy water and was totally lost, it would be considered a ‘lost coin,’ and no longer belong
to the original owner, whereas regarding chometz he did not make such a distinction. This
can be explained according to the Radvaz, who writes (3:546) that the reason why Chazal
were so concerned about a person consuming even the smallest amount of chometz is
because chometz represents the yetzer horah, like we find that Chazal (Berachos 17a)
refer to the yetzer horah as “the yeast in the dough,” because in the same way that yeast
makes the dough rise, so too the yetzer horah makes a person rise up and be haughty. As
such, a person must go to the furthest extremes to avoid it and must do all that he can to
remove all of it from his domain. Rabbah therefore obligated a person to view his chometz
as being the same chometz as it always was, no matter where it might be found, even in
the ocean, until he renders it totally destroyed by crumbling it before throwing it into the
sea.

The holiday of matzos

The pasuk says: ‫“ – את חג המצות תשמור‬keep the holiday of the matzos” (Shemos 23:15)
and it refers to all seven days of Pesach as ‘chag hamatzos’ even though we only are
obligated to eat matzos on the first night of Pesach. This is because matzos are by
definition the opposite of chometz. Therefore, ‘keeping the holiday of matzos,’ can be
understood as an enjoinder to make sure that entire seven days of Pesach be totally free
of chometz.

Both the position of Rav Yosef, that a person must remain humble and not rush to take
credit for his Torah learning, as well as Rabbah’s added precaution regarding chometz and
the yetzer horah that it symbolizes, must be guiding lights for us, so that we may approach
the Yom Tov with the proper humility and watchfulness, and so that we may serve Hashem
with all of our hearts, and merit that His Shechinah rest upon us.

Lessons from the matzah

There many lessons that we need to learn from the matzah. The Shulchan Aruch (459:2)
states: ‫“ – לא יניחו העיסה בלא עסק ואפילו רגע אחד‬Don’t leave the dough idle – even for a

100
moment – without kneading the dough…”.This is because as long as the dough is kneaded,
it won't become chometz, but when it is left alone, it can become chometz.

The Satmar Rebbe zt’l said that this alludes to the virtue of always being active, to always
do something for avodas Hashem. As tzaddikim say, “If you don't have the strength to
learn Torah, say Tehillim. If you don't have strength for saying Tehillim, give tzedokah…”.

As we say at the beginning of Pirkei Avos, ‫רצה הקב״ה לזכות את ישראל לפיכך הרבה להם‬
‫“ – תורה ומצוות‬Hakadosh Boruch Hu wanted Bnei Yisroel to have many merits, therefore
He gave them a large Torah with many mitzvos…”. With its 613 mitzvos, the Torah enables
a person always to be involved in Hashem’s service, no matter where he is, and no matter
what is happening in his life.

Rebbe Zusha of Anipoli zt’l said that there are three lessons we should learn from children:
1) If you want something, continue crying until you get it. 2) When your needs are met, be
happy. 3) Always be active.

The matzah teaches us several other lessons: The letters of ‫ מצה‬and ‫ חמץ‬are almost the
same. The only difference is in the ‫ ה‬and the ‫ח‬. The heh is broken. Rebbe Shlomo Dovid
of Slonim zt'l says that the broken ‫ ה‬hints to a broken heart and to humility.

The close similarity between the letters of ‫ חמץ‬and ‫ מצה‬tells us that it is often hard to
differentiate between kedushah and tumah, and that is how the yetzer horah ensnares
people. As the Meor Einayim writes, “Kedushah is called matzah, and the kelipah is called
chometz”. There's barely a difference between them, other than the small drop that
differentiates a ches from a heh. This is because the yetzer horah generally doesn't tell a
person to do an aveirah because who will listen to him? Rather, the yetzer horah tells him
that an aveirah is a mitzvah…”. The yetzer horah convinces him that an aveirah is a
mitzvah, and that is the great test.

We can also say that the small difference between the ‫ ח‬and ‫ ה‬indicates that with a drop
of good, one can reach very high levels. We shouldn't underestimate the value of one good
deed or one kabolah tovah.

The following story demonstrates this principle: One year, before Pesach, Reb Eliyahu
Dessler zt'l asked a bochur, “Which kabolah tovah did you accept on yourself as a
preparation for Pesach?” The bochur said that he didn't take on anything. Reb Dessler told
him the following moshul:

Many years ago, someone from a third world country came to New York City and was
astounded by the tall skyscrapers. He never saw anything like it. Someone told him, “On
the top floor of the empire state building there’s an observation deck. From there you can

101
see the entire city of New York.” “Amazing!” the man replied. “But who has the strength
to walk up all those steps to the top of the building?”

“You don't have to walk up the stairs. You can use the elevator.” The foreigner never heard
of an elevator before, so this person explained to him briefly that you go into a room,
press the button of the floor you want to get to, and the elevator brings you there.” The
man was astounded. There were so many things he didn't know, coming from a third-
world country. He got to the Empire State Building, went into the elevator, but didn't press
any button. The door closed, it turned dark, and he was afraid that he was being locked
inside. Panicking, he randomly started pressing buttons. As it turned out, he pushed the
emergency button. Emergency personnel came rushing and freed him from the elevator.
They asked him, “Why didn't you press the button to the floor you wanted to go?” He
replied, “I wanted to go to the highest floor, and I didn't believe that by pressing a button,
I would get there. I thought, 'How can pressing a button raise me to such heights? Even
walking the stairs would take hours. How could a push of a button with my finger bring
me up so high?”

But, as we know, a push of the button would have raised him to the highest heights. Reb
Dessler explained to the bochur that people think tiny kabolos are insignificant, but they
are not. With each small kabolah, one grows immensely.

The Satmar Rebbe zt'l compared this to two people walking towards an escalator, with
one of them taking one more step than his fellow man. That one step made all the
difference because with that one step, he got onto the escalator, and he was brought to
the next floor, while his friend, who didn't take that last step, remained below. This is the
power of a kabolah tovah. It is a small step that brings us up very high. This is alluded to
with the slight difference between the heh and the ches. It is the small things that make
all the difference. (R’ Elimelech Biderman)

‫וחמושים עלו בני ישראל‬

At the beginning of Parshas Beshalach it says that when Klal Yisroel left Mitzrayim, they
were ‫( חמושים‬Shemos 13:18). Rashi cites two interpretations of the word ‫חמושים‬. There
are in fact at least three seemingly disparate interpretations of this word found among
the meforshim.

According to one interpretation in Rashi, ‫ חמושים‬comes from the word ‫( חומש‬one-fifth)

and indicates that only one fifth of the Jewish population in Mitzrayim merited to leave,
while the other eighty percent died during the three days of Darkness (makkas choshech).

The Targum Yerushalmi interprets the word ‫ חמושים‬to mean they were armed. Rashi
alludes to this interpretation, but seems to interpret it to mean that they were literally

102
armed with weapons. The Targum Yerushalmi, on the other hand, interprets it figuratively
– they were ‘armed with good deeds’.

The Targum Yonasan ben Uziel gives a third interpretation: ‫ חמושים‬means that everyone
went out with five children.

Superficially, these are three disparate interpretations: (a) one-fifth of the population left;
(b) armed with good deeds; (c) bringing along five children each.

The interpretation of the Targum Yonasan ben Uziel is statistically mind- boggling. Shall
we presume that everyone had exactly five children? In addition, even if that was the
family size of each family unit, but the implication is that they were all children, of roughly
the same age! What is the meaning of this?

The Be’er Yosef by Rav Yosef Salant gives a beautiful interpretation. He links all three
seemingly independent interpretations of the word ‫ חמושים‬into a single narrative with a
single theme. He writes that if four-fifths of the Jewish people died during makkos
choshech, one can likely presume that specifically the adults died. Granted, the adults
might have sinned and been unworthy of yetzias Mitzrayim, but how can we speak of the
“sins of young children”?

Therefore, Rav Salant suggests that the children of these ‘wicked Jews’ did not die, which
would imply that four-fifths of the Jewish children at the time of yetzias Mitzrayim were
orphans. Imagine the scene – tens of thousands of little Jewish orphans wandering
around. Who is going to take care of them? What is going to be with them? The answer is
that every one of the remaining Jewish families ‘chipped in’ and said, “We’ll take these
orphans with us.” Thus, mathematically, every remaining family adopted four families
worth of orphans.

Therefore, when the Targum Yonasan ben Uziel says “five children”, he does not mean
that everyone went out with five children. He means that everyone went out with five
families worth of children – their own set and the set of four other families worth of
orphans whose parents died during makkos choshech! This then fits in perfectly with the
interpretation of the Targum Yerushalmi – they went out armed with good deeds! The
good deeds were the fact that they adopted the poor orphans left over from the people
killed during the ninth plague.

The Targum Yonasan ben Uziel is suggesting an amazing thing, which was a source of
extraordinary merit. Consider that after the Holocaust, there were undoubtedly
thousands of orphans. What happened to these kids? This is equivalent to everyone who
survived the Holocaust taking in X number of orphans. Anyone who takes in an orphan is
doing an amazing act of chessed. However, we must understand that these people were

103
refugees themselves. They were not people who were living a normal life who then
decided to “take in a few orphans”. These were displaced people themselves. These
people did not know where tomorrow’s bread was coming from! When Klal Yisroel
adopted the attitude “We can’t leave these kids in Mitzrayim” and dismissed all the
natural concerns about their own welfare and the welfare of their own families in a time
of great uncertainty, this was a tremendous act of courage and selflessness. This brought
them great merit. This “armed them” with the merit of great acts of kindness.

Thus, all three interpretations: “one-fifth”, “five children”, and “armed with acts of
kindness” dovetail together, according to the insight of Rav Yosef Salant.

Rav Matisyohu Solomon, adds a beautiful appendage to this insight. The Medrash Rabbah
in Eicha on the pasuk: ‫ יתומים היינו אין אב‬- “We were orphans who had no father” (Eicha
5:3) states that Hashem tells the Jewish people “Because you cried out to me that you
were like orphans who had no father, I will send to you a redeemer who has no father or
mother.” This refers to Esther in the time of Haman’s decree, about whom it is written:
‫ ויהי אמן את הדסה היא אסתר בת דדו כי אין לה אב ואם‬- “And he raised Hadassah who is the
same as Esther the daughter of his uncle, for she had neither father nor mother…” (Esther
2:7).

Rav Matisyohu Solomon interprets this Medrash: There is a special ‘segulah’ [virtuous
attribute] in the way Hashem responds to orphans. Hashem testifies that He will inevitably
respond to the cry of the orphan: ‫ אם ענה תענה אתו כי אם צעק יצעק אלי שמע אשמע צעקתו‬-
“If you will persecute him such that he cries out to Me, I will surely hear his cry” (Shemos
22:22). Hashem is the Father of orphans. When people inflict pain on orphans, Hashem
says, “This is My Business!” Watch out for a father or mother when someone dares to
startup with his or her children. So too, one must “watch out”, as it were, for Hashem’s
punishment if he dares start up with orphans and abuses or persecutes them. The
Rambam defines this as a bris kerusah [sealed covenant] that Hashem will respond to the
cries of help from an orphan (Hilchos Matnas Aniyim 10:3).

When Klal Yisroel said (in the above quoted pasuk in Eicha), “We are like orphans who
have no father” (referring to the Jews crying out in the time of Haman’s decree), it
guaranteed a response from Hashem. Hashem agreed that a response had to be
forthcoming, but He said (as it were) “I need a catalyst.” The catalyst was Mordechai. Since
Mordechai raised Hadassah (Esther), who was an orphan and had no parents, this act of
kindness triggered the Divine Response that brought about the salvation from Haman’s
decree. The Medrash says that Mordechai could have escaped the decree and returned
to Eretz Yisroel, but he refused to leave Persia because he was concerned about Esther’s

104
welfare. This was the ‘spark’ — the “arousal from below” – that in turn set off the “arousal
from Above” which brought the redemption.

Rav Matisyohu Solomon says that with this background, we can now understand why Klal
Yisroel in Mitzrayim needed the merit of taking out all these thousands of orphans. When
Klal Yisroel (despite all the reasons for not doing so) acted like the “father of orphans” and
each took in four families worth of children with no parents, this (as the Targum
Yerushalmi comments) was a tremendous merit, which triggered the Divine Response of
Hashem, the Father of all orphans.

Why we learn techiyas hemeisim from Shiras HaYom

On Shevii Shel Pesach we celebrate kriyas Yam Suf and we lein the Shiras HaYom, the
introductory pasuk is: ‫ אז ישיר משה ובני ישראל את השירה‬- “Then Moshe and Bnei Yisroel
sang this song to Hashem…” (Shemos 15:1). The words ‫אז ישיר‬, which begin this famous
section of the Torah are very peculiar. Literally, they mean, “Then he will sing” (future
tense). Technically, the Torah should have written, ‫“ — אז שר משה‬then Moshe sang” (past
tense). The Medrash comments “From here we see the idea of techiyas hameisim in the
Torah.”

It seems strange that one of the fundamental beliefs of our religion – one of 13 principles
of faith – namely techiyas hameisim is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah. Instead, we
learn it homiletically from several places, one of which is our pasuk, ‫אז ישיר משה ובני‬
‫ישראל את השירה‬. The question is – why is this the place to teach us about techiyas
hameisim?

The Chiddushei Horim shares a very interesting thought. There is a concept called emunah
[faith] – which is fundamental to our religion. These beliefs are listed in the ani ma’amins
(which literally means I have emunah – i.e., belief). We must believe in Hashem; we
believe that He is only One; etc., etc. We must have emunah.

Bnei Yisroel experienced yetzias Mitzrayim and then kriyas Yam Suf about which it is said
that the most simple handmaiden at the sea had prophetic visions greater that the great
novi Yechezkel. The first perek of sefer Yechezkel delineates the great vision Yechezkel
saw, including malochim and the Heavenly Chariot, and the Ribbono Shel Olam Himself.

Chazal say that the simple handmaiden by the Yam Suf had greater understanding and a
greater appreciation of spiritual matters than the novi Yechezkel. However, when Klal
Yisroel saw great truths with such clarity, paradoxically, that removed their ability to
have emunah. Contrary to the popular saying that ‘seeing is believing’, theologically, that

105
is not the case because what someone sees in front of his face is not something to which
we can apply the term ‘emunah.’ Emunah is faith – something I believe in despite the fact
that I cannot see it and I cannot prove it. If you see me holding up five fingers, you do not
need to believe that I am holding up five fingers, you know it! If Divine Truth was clear as
day to everyone at the sea, how is it possible to have any emunah there?

Yet, the Torah says that at the Yam Suf, the Jewish people had emunah – ‫– ויאמונו בה׳‬
“they had faith in Hashem” (Shemos 14:31). That is why this is the source for the concept
of techiyas hameisim. Their emunah did play a role. Their experience at the Yam Suf did
not include witnessing the idea that there comes a time when everyone dies, but they will
come back again. Consequently, at this point they still had an opportunity to fulfill the
mitzvah of having emunah regarding the concept of techiyas hameisim. Belief in all the
other essential fundamentals of faith was obvious to them at this point, to even the lowest
members of society. Their belief could only be in something that was not in front of their
faces. That something was techiyas hameisim, so it is appropriate for the Torah to allude
to this concept right at the beginning of Shiras HaYom with the words: ‫– אז ישיר משה‬
“then Moshe will sing”.

Why Shiras HaYom is part of pesukei d’zimra

The following idea is from the sefer Chikrei Lev written by R’ Laibel Hyman.

Have you ever wondered why oz yoshir is included in pesukei d’zimra? Pesukei d’zimra is
all about praise and thanksgiving for the greatness of Hashem. This is our preparation
for Shacharis. Before we can approach the Ribbono Shel Olam and ask him for our needs,
we need to have an understanding of who the Ribbono Shel Olam is. The entire pesukei
d’zimra is about His praises.

Oz yoshir doesn’t seem to fit into that formula. It is a historical event, something that
happened, for which shira was recited. Why did they choose to put oz yoshir into this
section of davening?

Rabbi Hyman raises a second question: How many times do we mention Mitzrayim in oz
yoshir? The answer is zero. Oz yoshir only mentions Pharaoh. This is seemingly a poem
about the destruction of the Egyptian nation and the Egyptian army, yet there is not any
mention of Egypt.

Rabbi Hyman suggests that what happened at the Yam Suf was not really about Mitzrayim.
It was a battle, so to speak, between the Hashem and Pharaoh. This was – if we can say
such a thing – “personal,” between Hashem and Pharaoh. Why? It is because Pharaoh at
this point still was of the belief that he was a god. He felt that he was more than just a
king. He felt, and he wanted everyone else to feel, that he was a Deity. ‫לי יארי ואני עשיתני‬

106
- “To me is the Nile and I am the Creator” (Yechezkel 29:3). That is why Pharaoh had this
problem about going to the bathroom, because gods do not go to the bathroom.
Therefore, he had this charade of everyone believing that he did not need to relieve
himself, which ostensibly proved that he was a god.

At krias Yam Suf, when Pharaoh was still of this impression and still attempting to hoist it
upon the Egyptian people, Hashem’s intention was ‫ וידעו מצרים כי אני ה׳ ויעשו כן‬- “And
Egypt shall know that I am Hashem” (Shemos 14:4). The purpose of krias Yam Suf is to
make known that there is only one G-d. Pharaoh, the Egyptian people, and indeed the
world had to be disabused of the notion that there was the possibility of another god in
the universe.

Therefore, Mitzrayim is not even mentioned in this song, because it is, so to speak,
between Hashem and Pharaoh alone. The bottom line of the Shira is ‫– ה׳ ימלך לעולם ועד‬
“Hashem will rule forever and ever”; there is only One Ribbono Shel Olam.

Now we understand, he says, why the Shira is located in pesukei d’zimra. This is really not
part of pesukei d’zimra in the classic sense. Rather, this is a prelude to krias shema and to
birchas krias shema. In krias shema, we accept upon ourselves the exclusivity and the
unity of Hashem. The prelude to that is “See what happened in Mitzrayim; see what
happened at the Yam Suf.” By krias Yam Suf, the Ribbono Shel Olam said, “I am going to
show the world that there is no such thing as another god. There is only one Ribbono Shel
Olam.”

Therefore, the words ‫ ה׳ ימלך לעולם ועד‬contain the final message of the Shira. The reason
the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah decided to put Shiras HaYom into pesukei d’zimra is not
because this is just another way of praising Hashem. We did that already with all the
perokim of Tehillim that we read prior to Shiras HaYom. This is a different message –
preparing us for birchas krias shema and krias shema, by reinforcing the idea of ‫שמע‬
‫ישראל ה׳ אלקינו ה׳ אחד‬.

Understanding why we say ‫ מגדול‬instead of ‫ מגדיל‬on Shabbos

On Shevii Shel Pesach, we commemorate the miraculous splitting of the Yam Suf that
enabled the trapped Jewish slaves to escape and drowned their Egyptian pursuers when
the waters returned to their natural state. Accordingly, the Torah reading for this day is
Shiras HaYom, and the Haftorah is a lengthy song of praise in which Dovid expressed his
gratitude to Hashem for saving him from the hand of his enemies.

At the conclusion of the song, Dovid said ‫“ – מגדול ישועות מלכו‬he is a tower of Hashem’s
salvations”. Although the pasuk in the Haftorah reads ‫מגדול‬, the pasuk in the parallel
chapter in Tehillim (18:51) says ‫“ – מגדיל‬he magnifies Hashem’s salvations”. The Medrash

107
(Shochar Tov) elucidates the difference between the two similar words by explaining that
the geulah [ultimate salvation] will not come all at once, but slowly, little by little. This is
what Dovid was referring to in Tehillim when he said ‫ מגדיל‬emphasizing that the
redemption is an ongoing process during which Hashem’s miraculous liberation becomes
greater and greater.

The Medrash compares this to the sun coming up slowly at the start of a new day, for if it
suddenly appeared high in the sky at the end of the dark night, people would be blinded
by its light, so the sun rises little by little so that we can get acclimated to it. Similarly, we
have so much suffering in our lives that if the geulah suddenly arrived out of nowhere all
at once, it would be too overwhelming, so it comes in stages, in the form of ‫מגדיל‬. In the
Haftorah, Dovid said ‫“ – מגדול‬a tower”, which refers to the end of the process, when
Moshiach will ultimately come and protect us like a tower.

When we say this pasuk at the end of birchas hamozan during the week we say ‫מגדיל‬,
while on Shabbos we say ‫מגדול‬. This practice comes from the Avudraham, who lived in the
14th century and writes that his Rebbeim taught him to make this change. What is the
reason for the switch?

The Torah Temimah suggests that the custom to modify birchas hamozan based on the
day it is being said is due to a misunderstanding. He posits that the original text of birchas
hamozan said only ‫מגדיל‬, for this is the pasuk that we are intended to quote both on
Shabbos and during the week. However, at some point in time, a well-meaning printer
decided to educate people about the two different versions of the text, so he added in
parentheses the words ‫בש״ב מגדול‬, which was his way of letting people know that in
Shmuel Beis, the word is not ‫ מגדיל‬as we say in birchas hamozan, but ‫מגדול‬.

Somewhere along the line, a subsequent printer misconstrued the annotation and
thought that ‫ בש״ב‬didn’t mean ‫בשמואל ב‬, but rather ‫בשבת‬, meaning that a person should
only say ‫ מגדיל‬during the week, but on Shabbos, he instead says ‫מגדול‬. The Torah
Temimah says that this misinterpretation is where our custom comes from, and in reality,
it has no legitimate Torah source.

Many commentators vehemently disagree with the Torah Temimah’s hypothesis and
point out that the division of sefer Shmuel into two books known as Shmuel Aleph and
Shmuel Beis has no Jewish basis. It was done by non-Jewish printers for whom sefer
Shmuel was too thick to print and bind as one book. Thus, in the times of the Avudraham,
Shmuel Beis did not yet exist, yet he still writes that he learned this practice from his
Rebbeim, so while this alleged misunderstanding may sound novel and creative, it cannot
be the true explanation for the source of our custom. So what is the real reason for our
practice of switching between ‫ מגדול‬and ‫ מגדיל‬in birchas hamozon?

108
The Avudraham explains that the pasuk that says ‫ מגדיל‬comes from Tehillim, which Dovid
composed prior to becoming king, while sefer Shmuel was written after he was already
king. Therefore, on Shabbos, which represents kingship, it is appropriate to use the
terminology from sefer Shmuel – ‫ – מגדול‬that corresponds to the time when Dovid was
king.

Alternatively, the Mussar HaNevi’im explains the change from ‫ מגדיל‬to ‫ מגדול‬based on the
aforementioned Medrash. He writes that we say ‫ מגדיל‬during the week because the
standard process of redemption comes slowly, but on Shabbos, we can say ‫מגדול‬, because
the Gemara in Shabbos (118b) teaches that if the Jewish people collectively observes two
Shabbosos, they will immediately be redeemed. Accordingly, Shabbos is unique in that it
has the ability to bring about an immediate and complete salvation, so on Shabbos, we
don’t have to say ‫ מגדיל‬that connotes that geulah will come in steps and stages, because
in the merit of keeping Shabbos, it can come all at once.

Lastly, Rav Dovid Cohen justifies our practice based on the Vilna Gaon’s explanation that
the version of Dovid’s song that appears in sefer Shmuel was authored before the episode
with Uriah and Batsheva (Shmuel 2:11), while the wording in Tehillim was written
afterward. Because we view Shabbos as a day that is me’ein oilam haboh (a taste of the
world to come) and without sin, on Shabbos we use the text that Dovid said before the
incident with Uriah and Batsheva. (R’ Ozer Alport)

Why Klal Yisroel were frightened by krias Yam Suf

When the Jewish people found themselves trapped between the Yam Suf and the pursuing
Egyptians, they became extremely frightened (14:10). The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh points
out that this is difficult to understand, as Hashem clearly informed them (Shemos 14:4)
before their departure that He would cause Pharaoh to stubbornly chase after them in
order to punish him, thereby glorifying His name. If so, why were the Jews scared when
they saw the Egyptians approaching when this was precisely what Hashem had told them
would happen, and He had assured them that they had nothing to worry about?

The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh suggests that Rashi is addressing this difficulty when he cites
the Medrash’s teaching that the sight that intimidated the Jewish people was not the
pursuing Egyptians, but the ‫ – שר של מצרים‬their guardian angel. Although they were not
scared of the humans running after them, they were scared of their heavenly angel.
Nevertheless, this explanation still begs the question: The guardian angel’s fate was tied
to the Egyptians that it oversaw, and if Hashem promised to protect the Jews from them,
what did they have to fear from the ‫?מצרים של שר‬

The Shem MiShmuel quotes his father, the Avnei Nezer, who posits that when Chazal
discuss the angel in charge of a nation, they are referring to that people’s unique yetzer

109
horah. Every nation has its own distinct weakness that causes it to stumble and sin. Thus,
when the Jewish people saw the ‫ שר של מצרים‬pursuing them, they were frightened, not
because they believed it would physically harm them or capture them, but because they
recognized that the Egyptian yetzer horah was chasing after them because it still resided
within them and influenced them.

Even though the Jewish slaves had been freed from physical servitude, they hadn’t yet
unshackled themselves from the negative spiritual values they had absorbed over the
course of their 210 years in Egypt, as the Medrash teaches (Yalkut Shimoni 234) that when
they were crossing the Yam Suf, the prosecuting angel argued that it was inappropriate
for Hashem to perform miracles on their behalf since they were equal to the Egyptians in
their idolatrous practices and beliefs.

However, at the Yam Suf, the Egyptian sway over the Jewish people was permanently
eradicated, as they saw their former oppressors drown and recognized that everything
Egypt stood for and represented was meaningless. As Rav Yisroel Reisman expresses it, on
the first day of Pesach, the Jews were taken out of Egypt, and on the last day of Pesach,
Egypt was taken out of the Jews. This explains why it is referred to as Acharon Shel Pesach
[the final day of Pesach]. No other Yom Tov has an “Acharon,” as Shavuos lasts only one
or two days, and the end of Succos is a separate Yom Tov known as Shemini Atzeres.

Pesach is unique in that it has Acharon Shel Pesach, which connotes that this is the
conclusion of the Yom Tov, when the influence of the Egyptians was finally uprooted once
and for all. As we come to the end of Pesach, it is important to recognize that in addition
to our physical freedom, we are also commemorating our spiritual redemption from the
negative impact of the nations that surround us, which obligates us to ensure that this
continues to be the case today. (R’ Ozer Alport)

For many more exciting halachic topics related to Pesach and

many more divrei Torah on the Haggadah please email me on
limudaymoshe@gmail.com and I will happily send you the
Haggadah I put together last year on entirely different topics to
this year’s one.
110