1. No category

‫עליה לרגל‬
A Journal of Divrei Torah
in Honor of Pesach, Sefiras HaOmer and
Shavuos
Nissan 2014/5774
Congregation Ohr HaTorah
Volume XVI
In Everlasting Tribute
To
Rabbi Yosef (Yossie) Stern z”l
‫הרב יוסף מרדכי שמחה בן חיים מאיר‬
‫ז״ל‬
Who Personified
EZRAH
Quietly, With Dignity, And Respect
In Its Every Form
‫ה‬.‫ב‬.‫צ‬.‫נ‬.‫ת‬
In honor of the Rav who tirelessly pushes to
keep the ruach of Torah and learning fresh
in our lives…
And in memory of
‫דוד אליעזר בן חיים דוב‬
who would have greatly
appreciated those efforts.
Naftalee & Tamar Zomberg
‫לזכר נשמת‬
‫חנה באשע בת ר' אריה הכהן‬
In honor of
‫דוד אליעזר בן נפתלי‬
Anoymous
________________________________
In honor of
Rav and Rebetzin Sobolofsky
Anonymous
From the Editors
We are proud to present the sixteenth edition of ‫ עליה לרגל‬in
honor of Pesach, Sefiras Haomer and Shavuos 5774. We thank
all those members who contributed outstanding ‫ דברי תורה‬for
this edition and appreciate their time and hard work. We thank
Rabbi Sobolofsky for his constant encouragement and guidance
in furthering the goal and inspiring us all lilmod uli’lamed.
Chazal comment on the pasuk in “arami oved avi”: “‘ve’es
Amaleinu’” – eilu habanim". We generally associate ameilus with
the word “toil”, as in ameilus b’Torah. Why do Chazal darshen
it to refer to the children? In Halichos Shlomo on Pesach, pages
261-262, fn. 211, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is quoted as
follows: In Lashon HaKodesh, amal is a desirable effort, and
therefore Chazal explain amal as referring to the effort vis a vis
our children, for there is both great grief and effort in raising
them, yet a person desires and enjoys it very much. In the spirit
of amaleinu – eilu habanim, we are extremely excited to present
several divrei Torah from the next generation of Ohr HaTorah yasher koach to Daniel Adler, Yitzy Kopstick, Zachary
Rothenberg, Tzvi Shapiro, and Avraham Zev Sobolofsky.
Finally, we would also like to express our sincere gratitude to all
of our sponsors, including several anonymous sponsors, and
Naftalee and Tamar Zomberg.
Wishing our readers a ‫ חג כשר ושמח‬and ‫!לשנה הבאה בירושלים‬
Phil Gross
Sruly Rothwachs
Table of Contents
Transforming the Experience into Eternity .................................................. 1
Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky
Q. and A. On Pesach................................................................................... 3
Daniel Adler
Towards a Deeper Understanding of Shavuot and Sefirat HaOmer ......... 10
Yair Daar
Kabalas HaTorah: Mishpatim Yesharim ................................................... 18
Phil Gross
The Arbeh Questions (Part 2) .................................................................... 20
Yehuda Isenberg
Hungry on Erev Pesach: What to Eat ....................................................... 29
Yitzy Kopstick
Chametz Nooksha….................................................................................. 31
Zachary Rothenberg
Just Saying… ............................................................................................. 32
Rabbi Moshe Schapiro
Safeik Sefiras HaOmer ............................................................................... 43
Tzvi Schapiro
What to Eat on Erev Pesach....................................................................... 44
Avraham Zev Sobolofsky
‫מצות קריאת הלל ביו"ט‬................................................................................ 45
‫חיים טרזיק‬
Snatching the ‫מצה‬...................................................................................... 52
Rabbi Michael Zauderer
Transforming the Experience into Eternity
Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky
We are all familiar with the two primary categories of
‫מלאכה‬. On ‫שבת‬, all of the ‫ ל"ט מלאכות‬are prohibited, whereas on
‫יום טוב‬, only ‫ מלאכות‬not directly associated with food are
restricted. Yet, there are two other times during the year when
‫ מלאכה‬is restricted, albeit not to the same extent as on ‫ שבת‬and
‫יום טוב‬. There is a prohibition of ‫ מלאכה‬on ‫ ;חול המועד‬although
there are many intricate halachic considerations that often permit
certain ‫ מלאכות‬to be done. The ‫ משנה‬in ‫ פסחים‬speaks of another
time when many ‫ מלאכות‬cannot be performed. On ‫ ערב פסח‬after
‫ חצות‬there is a prohibition to do certain ‫מלאכות‬. Similar to ‫חול‬
‫המועד‬, there are several exceptions to this rule. Notwithstanding,
the somewhat limited scope of these prohibitions, what is the
message of these unique times of ‫ חול המועד‬and the afternoon of
‫ ערב פסח‬that ‫ מלאכה‬is limited?
‫ תוספות‬in ‫ מסכת פסחים‬quote a ‫ ירושלמי‬that the
prohibition of ‫ מלאכה‬on ‫ ערב פסח‬stems from this being the time
to offer the ‫קרבן פסח‬. The ‫ ירושלמי‬maintains that the ‫ תורה‬itself
prohibits ‫ מלאכה‬on a day that a person brings a ‫קרבן‬. This
prohibition of work still applies today, only ‫ מדרבנן‬in the absence
of the‫בית המקדש‬, yet the original ‫ הלכה‬was rooted in the realm of
‫קרבנות‬. The status of ‫ מלאכה‬on ‫ חול המועד‬is the subject of a
major dispute among the ‫ראשונים‬. Some maintain that the
prohibition is ‫מדאורייתא‬, whereas others argue that it is ‫מדרבנן‬.
The ‫ משכנת יעקב‬suggests that both opinions are correct.
Sometimes ‫ מלאכה‬on ‫ חול המועד‬is prohibited ‫מדאורייתא‬, yet
sometimes the restrictions are ‫מדרבנן‬. The determining factor is
whether the individual actually brought ‫ קרבנות‬on that particular
~1~
day of ‫חול המועד‬. During ‫יום טוב‬, there are numerous private
‫ קרבנות‬that are offered. One who chooses to bring these ‫קרבנות‬
on ‫ חול המועד‬eleveates the day to a status of ‫איסור מלאכה‬. For
such an individual, ‫ מלאכה‬is prohibited ‫מדאורייתא‬, whereas for
others the restrictions of ‫ חול המועד‬are ‫מדרבנן‬. Thus, both the
unique statuses of the afternoon of ‫ ערב פסח‬and ‫חול המועד‬
ementae from the ‫בית המקדש‬.
What is the message that the ‫ תורה‬is teaching us by
restricting ‫ מלאכה‬on days when a ‫ קרבן‬is offered? Perhaps the
‫ תורה‬is instructing us about the nature of a religious experience.
Often, we have an encounter with '‫ ה‬in which we feel a sense of
closeness to Him. The real challenge of these experiences is to
ensure that they not remain mere moments in time. We must
stop and contemplate what we have accomplished and attempt to
incorporate their meaning into our daily lives. Returning
immediately from intense spiritual moments to our daily routine,
undermines our ability to make these moments last a lifetime.
Even personal life changing events, sucah as marriage or a
realtive’s death, must be followed by a time in which we remove
ourselves from our work schedule, thereby concentrating on the
significance of what has occurred. Similarly, a visit to the ‫בית‬
‫ המקדש‬and the offering of a ‫ קרבן‬is too critical of an event in our
lives to merely visit '‫ ה‬and then go back to work. We must stop,
think and plan how what we have accomplished will change our
lives. Every ‫ יום טוב‬should be a life-changing event! We must
stop our busy schedules and truly grasp what is occurring. May '‫ה‬
grant us the opportunity to once again celebrate our ‫ ימים טובים‬in
His presence. May we all be blessed to take the ‫ ימים טובים‬and
make them experiences that will last us for eternity.
~2~
Q. and A. On Pesach
Daniel Adler
Thank you to my former Rebbi, Rabbi Rashevsky, for
these insights.
Seder Plate
Q. What does the ‫ זרוע‬represent?
A. It represents the ‫ קרבן פסח‬which was ‫צלי אש‬.
Q. What does the egg represent?
A. The ‫ קרבן חגיגה‬which one ate before the ‫קרבן פסח‬.
Q. Why do we use eggs?
A. They are a mourner’s food and we are sad that we don’t have
the ‫בית המקדש‬.
‫קדש‬
Q. What does ‫ קידוש‬mean?
A. It talks about the holiness over the cup of wine.
Q. Where do we learn out that we need to make ‫ קידוש‬on ‫?שבת‬
A. It says in in the (‫עשרת הדברות )יתרו‬: ‫”זכור את יום השבת‬
‫“ – ” לקדשו‬remember the day of ‫ שבת‬for holiness”. Some people
say that those are the only words that are ‫ דאורייתא‬and the rest
are only ‫דרבנן‬.
Q. How is ‫ שבת‬connected to ‫( יציאת מצרים‬as we say in Kiddush)?
A. In ‫ מצרים‬the Jews had to do ‫עבודת פרך‬. If you use the ‫א''ת‬
‫ ב''ש‬method for the word ‫ פרך‬the letters that come out are ‫ו‬, ‫ג‬
and ‫ ל‬the ‫ גמטריא‬of these letters equal 39 and those are the
number of ‫ מלאכות‬one is prohibited to do on Shabbos.
~3~
‫ורחץ‬
Q. Why do we wash our hands for vegetables?
A. It says in ‫גמרא פסחים‬: ‫ דבר שטבולו במשקה צריך נטילה‬- an item
that is dipped in a liquid, one has to wash ‫כרפס‬.
Q. Why do we eat less than a ‫ כזית‬of vegetable?
A. If you eat a ‫ כזית‬there is a ‫ ספק‬of whether one has to make a
‫ ברכה אחרונה‬or not.
Q. Why is there a doubt?
A1. According to the ‫רשב''ם‬, since ‫ כרפס‬is connected to the meal
we make the ‫ ברכה‬on the ‫ כרפס‬and that takes care of the ‫מרור‬.
Therefore the benching after the meal (‫ )ברך‬takes care of the
‫כרפס‬.
A2. According to the ‫ר''י‬, the ‫ ברכה‬on ‫ כרפס‬can’t take care of the
‫ מרור‬since the ‫ הגדה‬and ‫ הלל‬are both a ‫הפסק‬. Therefore, the
‫ כרפס‬is not linked to the meal and needs its own ‫ברכה אחרונה‬.
Q. If the ‫ הלכה‬is in fact like the ‫ר''י‬, then why is there no ‫ברכה‬
on ‫?מרור‬
A. It is considered as a food that comes during the meal and the
‫ מצה‬takes care of it.
Q. Where do we get the custom to eat ‫?כרפס‬
A. It hints to what it was like in ‫ מצרים‬since if you flip ‫כרפס‬
around it turns into ‫ ס פרך‬-600,000 (people) had to endure
back-breaking labor.
Q. Why do we use saltwater?
A1.To remind us about the tears of slavery.
A2. To remind us of the splitting of the ‫ ים סוף‬on the seventh
day of ‫פסח‬.
A3. In ‫ מצרים‬there was no salt and the food didn’t taste good.
‫יחץ‬
Q. What is a special reason that a slave is given ‫?מצה‬
~4~
A. ‫ מצה‬is harder to digest and the master doesn’t want to keep
feeding the slave.
Q. Why do we break the piece of ‫?מצה‬
A. A slave is given scraps and even if he gets a full piece he breaks
it to save for a different day when he is hungry.
Q. What’s the idea of stealing and keeping it until the end?
A. To keep the children up for the whole ‫ סדר‬and for them to be
excited.
Q. What is the idea of redeeming the ‫ אפיקומן‬for a prize?
A. To show how precious the ‫ מצוה‬of ‫ מצה‬is.
Q. Why do we save the bigger piece for later?
A1. A slave puts the bigger piece away for when it is needed.
A2. The smaller piece represents ‫ יציאת מצרים‬and the ‫אפיקומן‬
represents ‫ משיח‬and there are going to be bigger miracles by ‫משיח‬
than by ‫יציאת מצרים‬.
Q. Why do we start out the ‫ סדר‬with three ‫?מצות‬
A1. Every ‫ שבת‬we have two ‫ חלות‬and on ‫ פסח‬we need two and
one broken one for ‫לחם עוני‬.
A2. One for each type of Jew: ‫ ישראל‬,‫ לוי‬,‫כהן‬.
A3. It represents the three ‫אבות‬: ‫ יעקב‬,‫ יצחק‬,‫אברהם‬.
A4. There were three ‫ מצות‬in the ‫קרבן תודה‬.
‫מגיד‬
Q. Why do we split ‫?הלל‬
A1. The ‫ גמרא‬says: ‫ חוטפין את המצה‬- grab to get to meal faster
so that the kids can be able to stay up for the meal.
A2. So the children will ask questions.
Q. What is the difference between the first and second half of
‫?הלל‬
A. The first half talks about ‫ יציאת מצרים‬while the second half,
after the meal, is praising Hashem for ‫משיח‬.
~5~
‫מוציא מצה‬
Q. What is the basis for holding the whole ‫ מצות‬and the half
‫?מצה‬
A. It is a ‫ מחלוקת‬whether one must hold both whole ‫ מצות‬or all
of them. So to satisfy both views, we hold all of them.
Q. Why is there an idea for the ‫ בעל הבית‬to eat a ‫ כזית‬from each
‫?מצה‬
A. It is questionable whether the ‫ ברכה‬goes on the whole ‫ מצה‬or
the broken one.
‫מרור‬
Q. Why do we use ‫?חרוסת‬
A1. To dull some of the sharpness of the ‫מרור‬.
A2. ‫– זכר לטיט‬to remember the mud and mortar of the bricks.
Q. Why is there red wine in the ‫?חרוסת‬
A1. It reminds us of two bloody ‫מצות‬: the sheep and ‫ברית מילה‬
A2. It reminds us of the first plague, blood.
‫שלחן עורך‬
Q. Why don’t ‫ אשכנזים‬eat roasted meat on the first night of ‫?פסח‬
A. There could be a problem with ‫ מראת עין‬and people might
think that you are actually eating the ‫קרבן פסח‬.
‫צפון‬
Q. Why do we eat the ‫ מצה‬from ‫ צפון‬last after the meal?
A1. It is what they did in the time of the ‫ קרבן פסח‬with the ‫קרבן‬,
and the ‫ מצה‬that we eat during ‫ צפון‬is ‫פסח לקרבן זכר‬.
A2. To keep the taste in your mouth.
A3. Eating the ‫ מצה‬last shows how much we love it.
~6~
Other – Miscellaneous
Q. What is a major difference between ‫ שבת‬and ‫?יום טוב‬
A1. One is allowed to cook for ‫ אוכל נפש‬purposes.
A2. If you do a ‫ מלאכה‬on ‫שבת‬, the punishment is ‫סקילה‬
(stoning) but if the same action is done on ‫ יום טוב‬the
punishment is ‫( מלקות‬lashes).
Q. Why is it so important to celebrate ‫?יציאת מצרים‬
A1. It shows that not only did Hashem create the world but he is
the ‫( משגיח‬watcher).
A2. Hashem took us away from being slaves, and now we are
slaves to Him by doing the ‫מצות‬.
Q. What does ‫ פסח‬mean?
A1. Passover, and Hashem passed over the Jewish homes.
A2. ‫ רש''י‬says that it means ‫רחמנות‬. Hashem had mercy on us
because he let us live even when we did idol worship.
A3. ‫ – פה סח‬mouth that talks.
Q. If Hashem said that we would be in ‫ מצרים‬for 400 years why
did we go out after 210 years?
A1. The slavery was so harsh that we only had to stay for 210
years.
A2. The time was counted from when ‫ יצחק‬was born.
Q. Why is Moshe’s name only mentioned once in the ‫?הגדה‬
A. This night is reserved for Hashem and his glory.
Q. Why do the ‫ חכמים‬say that you don’t need to have a cup of
wine for ‫?והבאתי‬
A. ‫ והבאתי‬means “I will redeem you “and we were never
permanently in ‫ארץ ישראל‬.
Q. Why do we use a candle with only one wick for ‫?בדיקה‬
A1. You have to get into nooks and crannies and that is very hard
to do when you have a large flame.
A2. We are scared that if you use such a large flame it will catch
on to something and the whole house will burn down.
~7~
Q. Why do we put out pieces of bread?
A1. If you don’t end up finding anything then the ‫ ברכה‬might be
a ‫ ברכה לבטלה‬.
A2. If you don’t find anything it is considered a “lousy” search.
A3. So you have something to burn and so that you can do the
‫בטול‬.
Q. Why in the ‫ מה נשתנה‬are the first two questions about slavery
and the last two about freedom?
A1. We start out the night as slaves and end free.
A2. We need to know about the slavery in order to fully enjoy
the freedom.
Q. Why is it better to eat ‫ שמורה מצה‬the whole ‫?יום טוב‬
A1. The Vilna Gaon says that you get a bigger mitzvah.
A2. It is watched better and therefore the ‫ השגחה‬is more
trustworthy.
Q. Why do we spill the wine by the ‫?מכות‬
A1. Even though the ‫ מצרים‬were evil, they are still Hashem’s
creations.
A2. The ‫ מכות‬were great but they were nothing compared to the
miracles that are going to happen at the time of ‫משיח‬. Therefore
we spill out some wine to show that these miracles weren’t as
great as possible.
Q. Why is there a custom not to eat ‫ מצה‬before ‫?פסח‬
A1. So that the taste should be fresh in our mouths.
A2. To make a distinction between eating ‫ מצה‬of ‫ רשות‬versus
eating it for a ‫מצוה‬.
Q. Why do we say only half ‫ הלל‬on the last six days of ‫ פסח‬while
on ‫ סוכות‬we say full ‫ הלל‬the whole ‫?יום טוב‬
A. On the seventh day, the ‫ מצריים‬drowned in the ‫ ים סוף‬and we
shouldn’t be so happy on that day to say the whole ‫הלל‬. On ‫חול‬
‫ המועד‬we say only half because we don’t want it to be greater than
‫יום טוב‬.
~8~
Q. Why do we wear a kital during the ‫?סדר‬
A. Because of our ‫ שמחה‬and it is ‫בגד מלכות‬.
Q. Why do we say ‫ הלל‬in shul at night?
A. Because we don’t make a ‫ ברכה‬on ‫ הלל‬during the ‫ סדר‬so we
say it then.
Q. Why don’t we say a ‫ ברכה‬on ‫ הלל‬by the ‫?סדר‬
A. ‫ הלל‬is part of ‫ מגיד‬and that doesn’t have a ‫ברכה‬.
Q. Why doesn’t ‫ מגיד‬have a ‫?ברכה‬
A. Telling the story of ‫ יציאת מצרים‬is like blessing Hashem and
you
don’t
make
a
‫ברכה‬
on
a
‫ברכה‬.
~9~
Towards a Deeper Understanding of Shavuot
and Sefirat HaOmer
Yair Daar
Sometimes, to get a meaningful picture of a Jewish ritual,
one can simply start with the name. This article will address the
connotations of the name “Sefirat HaOmer,” and will show us a
deeper (and possibly surprising) picture of what this enigmatic
count can teach us.
The Meaning of “‫”ספירה‬
In Hebrew, the three-letter root “‫ר‬-‫פ‬-‫ ”ס‬is used in a
surprisingly flexible way. A story is a ‫סיפור‬, while ‫ להסתפר‬means
to get a haircut. The word for “border” is ‫( ספר‬s’far) and, most
relevant to our purposes, a number is a ‫מספר‬. Although each
employment of this root appears disparate from the others, they
are actually related. The common theme underlying these usages
is the significance of order and form.
When someone gets a haircut, the hair on his or her head
is given shape. What was a messy head of disorganized hair is
now a styled into a specific form. A good storyteller does more
than report random facts; a good story requires taking
information and weaving it into an organized tale. A border
provides definite form to whatever entity it serves. 1
Finally, we come to the use of ‫ר‬-‫פ‬-‫ ס‬that we need to
understand better: Counting goes beyond simply assigning
numbers to objects; it places items in a particular place along a
1
I heard this idea from R’ Eliyahu Soloveitchik.
~ 10 ~
continuum. Each entity’s location in the count is irrelevant
without the others. Numbers are only meaningful in the context
of other numbers. For this reason, it is reported in Rav
Soloveitchik’s name that saying something like “today is day
number 8 of the omer” is not cause for someone to think they
have been ‫ יוצא‬the ‫מצוה‬. Using a number to name2 the day does
not reference the rest of the count. However, saying “today is the
8th day” places the day in the context of a count, and qualifies as
a true ‫מעשה ספירה‬.3
The Significance of Weeks
With this, we can turn to the culmination of Sefira: the
holiday of Shavuot. This name for the chag indicates that
Shavuot is seen as the culmination of the preceding weeks. What
makes Kabbalat HaTorah the pinnacle of the weeks of Sefirat
HaOmer?
The answer to this question begins by taking a
completely secular look at the “week.” Of all the intervals we use
to mark calenderic time, the week is only one which has no basis
in the natural world. Days, months, and years, are marked by the
Earth’s rotation, the phases of the moon, and the Earth’s
revolution around the sun, respectively. But a week is a simply the
combination of seven days into a discrete unit.4
From a religious perspective, the week represents human
effort to make meaning of G-d’s world. G-d, through nature,
2
Think about athletes; Babe Ruth may have worn #3, but that doesn’t make
him the 3rd of anything.
3
R’ Michel Shurkin, Harerei Kedem Vol. 2
4
Allen Friedman, Unnatural Time: Its History and Theological Significance
(Torah u’Maddah Journal #15)
~ 11 ~
provides us with days to mark time, and we combine those days
into a greater whole - the week.5 By using the week to mark time,
man has thereby created something meaningful out of what G-d
has given. Sefirat HaOmer emphasizes this theme by having us
count seven weeks, or creating a week of weeks, so to speak.
(At this point, the astute reader might ask “but what
about Shabbat? Isn’t that really where the week comes from?”
While this may be the cause for breaking up a week as we do,
there still exists nothing in nature that informs us that the week is
beginning or ending. Later on, we will actually address the place
of Shabbat in this discussion.)
The connection to the word “Sefira” now jumps off the
page. As we demonstrated, the whole notion of counting is to
take different parts and to shape them into an organized whole.
This concept is almost identical to that of the week which takes
multiple days and combines them into a greater unit. On a basic
level, this triple reference (counting/weeks/seven) is significant
simply for emphasis. Additionally, the number three generally
represents a strong bond,6 perhaps hinting to the fact that an
orderly system is only as effective as the strength of the
connectivity of its parts. However, if we take a deeper look to the
combination of the Sefira into weeks, we can get a profound
understanding of the Sefirat HaOmer and Kabbalat HaTorah.
This idea connects nicely with the word for oath, ‫שבועה‬. When one makes
an oath, he or she is in some way taking what G-d has given and using it in a
new way. G-d has granted us the ability to create binding oaths, and this
permission can be used to create original, yet meaningful, customs for an
individual.
6
Kohelet 4:12: “A three-ply cord is not easily snapped.”
5
~ 12 ~
“Sheva Shabbatot”
The first time Sefirat HaOmer appears in the Torah it is
described in the following manner: “you should count seven
Shabbatot.” Additionally, in this context, Pesach is referred to as
“Shabbat” as well: “From the day after the Shabbat, you should
count seven Shabbatot.” This indicates to us that getting a better
understanding of Shabbat will lead us to our goal of demystifying
Sefirat HaOmer and Shavuot.
What is the significance of Shabbat? The first time we
meet Shabbat in the Torah, it is in the context of creation. The
Torah tells us that “G-d finished (“‫ )”ויכל‬all of his work” and
then “rested (“‫ )“וישבת‬from his work.” The second reference to
resting includes an important nuance - G-d rested from his work.
This implies that somehow, the work was having some sort of
“effect” on G-d from which he was removing Himself by resting.
What exactly is being referenced here?
The creation of the world, although a miraculous event,
bears the opposite result: G-d is now hidden. The material world,
by definition, challenges our awareness of G-d, who is not a
physical being. Creation is thereby having an effect of sorts on Gd; it limits human ability to perceive the divine. G-d resting from
work is an act that halts the process of hiding His presence.
Shabbat then leaves an opening for us to create a meaningful
religious life using this world alone. Our natural lives contain
experiences in which we can feel, in some way, the presence of the
Ribbono Shel Olam.
When finding meaning in this way, a person engages in a
process of a metaphorical “counting of weeks.” He or she must
take all the elements of life and extract the divine connections
involved. The meaningful parts of each experience, thought, and
interaction are then combined to create a greater whole: an overall
~ 13 ~
sense of spirituality, positively influencing a person’s life both
moving forward and looking back. This is the gift of Shabbat
which is emphasized by the mitzvah of Sefirat HaOmer.
Now that we better understand Sefirat HaOmer, we are
ready to move on to Shavuot. But first, let’s recap what we have
learned.
Summary
We have so far demonstrated that the essence of Sefirat
HaOmer is to craft an orderly system of numbers in which
element of the system is seen in context of its greater whole. We
have also pointed out that the orderly system referenced here
involves man interacting with, combining, and improving on that
which G-d has granted.
Then, when we add Shabbat into the mix, we realize the
importance of this imagery. Life, although not inherently divine,
can become a vehicle to experience godliness. In order to do this,
each person must craft their own meaning. This means taking
what G-d has given us - nature, human creativity, interpersonal
relationships, etc... - and combining all these factors to create a
meaningful life, a life greater that the sum of its parts. One
experience won’t do it; it takes a multitude of meaningful events
and requires that each person put effort into making it
meaningful.
With this, we come full-circle to a deeper understanding
of the holiday of Shavuot and Kabbalat HaTorah.
The Shtei HaLechem
To make our argument a little more convincing, we can
take a look at the offering unique to Shavuot. After 49 days of
counting, the Torah tells us that two loaves of bread are brought
~ 14 ~
as an offering to Hashem. This offering presents a stark
comparison with the offering brought at the beginning of Sefirat
HaOmer, which was made up of barley. What we have here is a
perfect example of the ability of man to take G-d’s gifts and make
something greater. Simple grain can be turned into delicious and
nourishing bread, but only with human effort.7
Giving and Receiving
Generally, our view of Kabbalat HaTorah is one of
submission and servitude. The Torah is G-d’s rule book for us,
which we are bound to follow despite our personal preferences.
Bnei Yisrael say to G-d, Na’aseh V’Nishma, - we will do what
you say, and then you can tell us what it means. We do not
question, and we do not, G-d forbid, add to the Torah. Yet,
submission of man’s will to G-d’s is not the entire picture of
Kabbalat HaTorah.
Just think about the dichotomy of Matan Torah and
Kabbalat HaTorah. The concept of kabbalah, accepting, is one
involving submission to a greater power. However, the other side
of the story is that G-d gave us the Torah. This matana is a
precious one, but gives us some input in how the Torah is
understood and practiced. Chazal were given the ability to make
binding decrees, and the great scholars of every generation have
the ability to decide how the Torah is applied contemporarily. As
the Ritva tells us:
7
See Midrash Tanchuma, Parshat Tazria Siman 7: King Turnus Rufus asked
Rabbi Akiva: “Whose products are more pleasant, those of G-d or those of
man?” R’ Akiva responded: “those of man.” R’ Akiva then had wheat and
bread brought to him and said: “These (wheat) are the products of G-d, and
these (loaves of bread) are the products of man, are they (loaves) not more
pleasant?”
~ 15 ~
...when Moshe ascended on high to receive the Torah, G-d
showed him for each matter 49 ways to prohibits and 49
ways to permit. When Moshe asked G-d about this, he
responded that it is given to the wise men of each generation
and the decision should follow them. 8
The dynamic nature of the Torah makes it eternally
meaningful and allows for Jews of all different personalities and
mindsets to find a life-path in its words. We have the ability to
craft, shape, and create something which is, ‫כביכול‬, even greater.9
(Obviously, this ability varies based on the authority required to
be innovate in each given situation.) We should have a
tremendous amount of hakarat haTov to be given such a gift, one
that can be meaningful to us, no matter who we are.
Conclusion: Chacham HaRazim
When one sees 600,000 Jews in one place, the bracha of
Chacham HaRazim, “the knower of secrets,” is made. The
message of this bracha is that no matter how large and varied Klal
Yisrael might get, G-d knows the heart of each person. He can
therefore provide a system of beliefs and practices that can be
relevant to all and, supremely unifying as a result.
Shabbat and Sefirat HaOmer teach us the power of each
person discovering spiritual meaning in their own way. Kabbalat
HaTorah justifies this by providing a Torah for each seeker of
8
9
Chiddushei Ritva, Kiddushin 13b
See Talmud Yerushalmi, Masechet Brachot: Shimon bar Vah said in the
name of R’ Yochanan: “The words of scholars are companions to the words of
the Torah and are more beloved, as it says (in Shir HaShirim): “because your
companionship is greater than wine.”
~ 16 ~
truth and the divine. The key is to synthesize all the elements of
one’s life into a spiritual whole utilizing the Torah as the ultimate
guide. May we all merit to find a path to G-d both in our lives
and in His word. ‫ותן חלקינו בתורתיך‬.
~ 17 ~
Kabalas HaTorah: Mishpatim Yesharim
Phil Gross
Parshas Teruma begins a series of parshiyos stretching
through Vayikra that focus extensively on mitzvos bein adam
l’makom, including building the mishkan, details regarding the
keilim in the mishkan, clothing worn by the kohanim, and then
extensive laws of korbanos brought in the Bais Hamikdash. Yet,
before this extensive series of ritual laws are taught, immediately
following the receiving of the aseres hadibros at Har Sinai, in
parshas Mishpatim we are first given the laws of nezzikin/dinei
mamonos (what we lawyers call civil and tort law).
Explains the Ramban that HKB”H wished to give the
Mishpatim first before anything else because the laws of
Mishpatim are parallel to “lo tachmod” - you should not desire
what others have. If a person does not adhere fully to and
become well informed of the laws of bein adam l’chaveiro (and
how to deal with interpersonal interactions), he may come to
desire and ultimately take someone else’s possessions. Therefore,
Hashem says to Moshe “Vi’eileh HaMishpatim Asher Tasim
Lifneihem” - further explains the Ramban “Mishpatim yesharim
yanhigu osam beinehem” - the essence of the Jewish people is to
be on the path of yashrus, a word not easily defined, but
commonly explained as integrity, straightness, and perfection. It
is impossible to be an eved Hashem without being a good, yashar
person, both between one’s self and others, and one’s self and
Hashem.
Indeed, part and parcel of the command of “v’halachta
b’drachav”, of emulating Hashem’s ways, includes as we say at
~ 18 ~
end of “Mizmor shir leyom HaShabbas” - “[li’hagid] ki yashar
Hashem” and the pasuk at the end of Ha’Azinu “keil emunah
v’ain avel tzaddik v’yashar hu” - Hashem is yashar, and thus we
must be yesharim.
To be a person defined as an “ish yashar” also requires
precision, because literally speaking, yashar means straight like a
line, which is the shortest point between two dots.
It is no surprise, then, that both Yaakov and the Jewish
people are called Yeshurun, from yashar. The antithesis of klal
Yisrael, is Amalek, whose very name indicates m’ukal, crooked
and deceiving. Midrashim comment on how Amalek used
trickery to wage war and sought to implant within others
deception and self-deception, to obscure truth and clear vision.1
Chazal comment on the pasuk in Tehillim “shlach or’cha
va’amitcha” – “[Hashem should] send us your light and truth”
that “orcha” – “Your light” refers to Moshiach, and “amitcha” -“your truth” refers to Eliyahu HaNavi.2 Light and truth are the
antitheses of deception and self-deception and thus the antitheses
of Amalek. In a world that all too often distorts the truth about
the Jewish people and artzeinu haKedosha, and particularly as an
Ohr LaGoyim, we pray for the time that Be”H, Mashiach will
help us fulfill the commandment to both literally and figuratively
remove the falsities and distortions from the world and restore
the absolute truth of Hashem and his Torah to illuminate the
straight
and
yashar path for all to follow.
See R’ Yakov Haber, Amaleik and Purim: Deception and Self-Deception,
http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2012/moadim/rhab_purim.html.
1
2
Id.
~ 19 ~
The Arbeh Questions (Part 2)
Yehuda Isenberg
The relationship between Paroh and his staff plays a
critical role in the development of the makos, and ultimately in
Egypt’s downfall. This discussion began in last year’s Aliyah
L’Regel article. The following is a brief summary.
In introducing Makas Arbeh at the beginning of Parshas Bo
(10, 5), Moshe warns:
 “v’Kisah es ein haAretz, v’lo yuchal liros es haAretz” (and
it covered the ein of the whole land, and could not see
the land).
When the makah arrives, the Torah (Bo 10, 15) states:
 “Vayechas es ein kol haAretz, vaTechshach HaAretz”
(and it covered the ein of the whole land and the land
was darkened).
Both verses are repetitious. This is not problematic, because
both verses appear to have a Prat (detail) followed by a Klal
(generality), which via the rules of Drush1, would be all-inclusive.
The bigger problem is that the inclusion of “kol”2 suggests that
This is the 5th midah of R’ Yishmael.
As the case in Bo involves two verses with only difference being “ kol”, here
are 3 examples of such a difference: (1) Parshas Noach (7, 11): "all the great
deep wellsprings were opened" vs. (8, 2) "the wellsprings were sealed". This
means that not all the wellsprings were sealed ( Rashi based on Sanhedrin
108a). (2) VaYeira (18, 24): "lamakom" in Avraham’s plea to pardon S’dom
and Amorah vs. Hashem’s agreement to forgive (18, 26) "lechol hamakom”.
Although Avraham was hesitant to plead for the entire metropolis, Hashem
agreed to pardon the entire metropolis ( Netziv). (3) Balak (23, 6): "all the
1
2
~ 20 ~
the second verse is saying something more/different than the first
verse.3
Based on the only other exact match to “v’Kisah es ein
haAretz” in the Torah – from Parshas Balak (22, 5) – ein
haAretz translates to Paroh’s officers while ein kol haAretz means
Paroh himself.
Part 2: Enslaved to Translation - a Disservice?
If ein haAretz translates to Paroh’s officers, then “sarim”
should be mentioned explicitly in these parshiyos. “ Sarim” are
not found, except for the beginning of Sefer Shemos where “Sarei
Misim” (officers of tax collection per Rashi) are stated in the 11th
verse. Those sarim lived during the reign of a different Paroh,
since this Paroh dies (Shemos 2, 23) while Moshe is in Midyan.
Later in BeShalach (14, 7), when Paroh gives chase to Bnei
Yisrael, his accompanying men are referred to as Shalishim.
Rashi and the Rashbam translate this to mean military officers or
(simply) officers, respectively. A similar term is not used for
Paroh’s non-military officers, nor are any high-ranking officers4
mentioned before this final desperate attempt of Paroh. Only
officers of Moav" before Bilam’s first attempt at “blessing” klal Yisrael vs. (23,
17) "the officers of Moav" before Bilam’s second attempt – when the officers
of Moav saw that there was no hope in Bilam, some of them left (Rashi).
3
Expressed mathematically, let (a, A) be an array representing the warning of
the plague, and let (b, B) be an array representing the execution of the plague
itself. a is a subset of A (i.e. a < A). b is a subset of B (b < B). There are two
additional constraints: 1. a < > b. 2. A = B. The best solution was a more
unbiased estimate (i.e. closer to the pshat) of “a”, using another source in the
Torah.
4
This would include officers that were in Paroh’s closer circle of advisors.
This excludes the taskmasters in Shemos (5,6, etc.) and the magicians in
VaEira (7, 11, etc.).
~ 21 ~
avadim (slaves or servants) are mentioned, even though it is hard
to believe that the governmental structure of a world power had a
flat hierarchy. Nevertheless, the standard definition persists
among the English translations. Artscroll and the Feldheim
translation by R. Silbermann use the definition of "servants"
every time. R. Aryeh Kaplan in The Living Torah provides a
more appropriate definition of officials/advisors, but it varies:
1. VaEira 7 (10) - omits the definition
2. VaEira 7 (20, 28, 29); 8 (5, 7, 17, 20); 9 (14, 34); Bo
10 (6, 7); 11 (3, 8); 12 (30) BeShalach 14 (5) - officials
3. VaEira 8 (27) - servants
4. VaEira 9 (20, 30) - subjects
5. VaEira 9 (20, 21) - slaves
6. Bo 10 (1) – advisors
Thus, in over 70% of the 22 occurrences, the term “officials”
or “advisors” is used.
While “sar” or “sarim” are not stated during the reign of the
“ten plague” Paroh, the commentators do use the term. The
Abarbanel in the second half of his explication of Arbeh, twice
uses the term "officers" - sarim. The Netziv in HaEmek Davar
(Bo 10, 8) also states “... the important officers who sat with
Paroh to provide counsel ...”5 Additionally, the Meshech
Chachmah (Bo 11, 3) uses the term sarim, as well as atzilim 6. He
also says explicitly that "Avdei Paroh" were the wise men. The
Malbim (Tehilim 78, 44) is yet another source for the use of the
term officers, although not necessarily as a direct definition of
The Netziv has an even more elaborate officer hierarchy back in VaEira (7,
29 - 8, 5). However, this necessitates its own analysis.
6
As used in Mishpatim (24, 11), this term translates into leaders, per many
commentators.
5
~ 22 ~
“Avadim”. In his commentary on ‫צפרדע‬, Rav S. R. Hirsch, while
employing “servants” in the translation, utilizes “courtiers” and
“high officials” in his commentary.
Two proofs that the term avadim is used for sarim can also
be brought from an earlier makah in Parshas VaEira, as well as
back in Parshas VaYeisheiv.
The first proof is the only verse in these parshiyos that
includes avadim twice: VaEira (9, 20). It precedes makas Barad
– “one that feared Hashem amongst the avadim of Paroh chased
his avadim”. If the command indeed came from Paroh, then they
would have been foolish not to have heeded his command for fear
of suffering the consequences. Thus, these avadim were probably
officers that had their own servants, and these officers had heard
the warning from Moshe directly and not Paroh. If these officers
feared Hashem, they then sent their own servants into houses.
The Ohr HaChayim seems to have this understanding when he
says that the Egyptians "... did not concern themselves with the
care of their servants and animals ..." It can also been implied
from the Ramban: "... that Moshe spoke to them." In other
words, Moshe spoke to people other than Paroh, even though
Moshe's initial warning was in the singular tense.
A second proof is at the end of VaYeisheiv (40, 20): Paroh
makes a feast for all his servants and raises the head of the officer
of the Mashkim and the officer of the Ofim amongst his servants.
Thus, an officer is included in the broad category of servant.
There is another proof from Tanach. At the end of Sefer
Melachim B (25, 8), Nevuzaradan is introduced in the same verse
~ 23 ~
as both the head officer of the slaughterers7 and an eved to King
Nevudchadnetzar.
No Official Title: A Better Translation
If eved includes Paroh’s officers, then why are Paroh’s
officers strictly referred to as servants? In contradistinction, the
Paroh that ruled Egypt in Yosef’s time had various officers.
Besides making Yosef the viceroy, he has other officers with titles:
Potiphar as the Sar of the Tabachim, the Sar of the Mashkim, the
Sar of the Ofim, the Sar of the Beis HaSohar (prison), and Sarei
Mikneh (VaYigash 47, 6).
Yisro (18, 21) introduces to Moshe a four-level structure
of officers with the term “sarim”.
Even later in Parshas Balak (22, 15), there is more than
one level of sarim. Balak sends a second delegation to convince
Bilam to accept Balak’s offer. This delegation consists of
"officers that were more numerous/greater (rabim) and
honorable from these [the previous] ones."
The lack of official titles in the Torah narrative suggests
a certain perception of Paroh’s officers vis-à-vis Paroh. In various
places in the Torah, the perception of a person/party is used in
the Torah narrative instead of the facts.
The term is “Rav haTabachim”. The Metzudas David calls this the officer
in charge of those who were to execute per the command of the king.
Artscroll’s translation is “Chief Executioner” while the Koren calls this the
“Officer of the Guard”.
7
~ 24 ~
Examples of Perception Used Instead of Facts
This rule is not to be confused with quotations which
may have a completely different motive, like as a sign of respect, a
form of intimidation, etc. In addition, Sefer Devarim is not
considered for these examples since much of the narrative in
Devarim is meant to be words of rebuke from Moshe Rabeinu to
strike fear in the hearts of Bnei Yisrael8.
In VaYeira (19, 9), the Anshei Sdom said that “this one
(Lot) has come to dwell in their midst and is judging them, and
now we will punish you even more than your guests.” The Torah
then states that they exerted much pressure "on the man, on Lot".
The Malbim explains that he was no longer seen in the eyes of
the Sodomites as an officer or judge, but rather just an ordinary
man.
In Chayei Sarah (24, 17-18), when Eliezer runs over to
Rivkah to ask for water, the Torah refers to him as an eved, but
later (24, 29) switches back to calling him a man when Lavan
runs out to greet Eliezer. R. S. R. Hirsch9 explains that initially
“it is not as Eliezer but as ‘the servant’ in the demeanor of a
servant, that he runs to meet Rivkah… She, however … addresses
him as "my lord", even though he stands before her as a servant.”
When Lavan greets Eliezer, Eliezer now no longer appears as an
eved until he mentions that he is a servant. Thus, the Torah
See the Ramban in his introduction. The Abarbanel argues that these words
were indeed what Moshe said in his rebuke many years earlier in the Midbar at
the time of the occurrence.
9
This is based on the Feldheim (2002) translation by Daniel Haberman. Dr.
Yitzchak Levy (R. Hirsch’s Grandson, published by Judaica Press, 1966) who
employs the translation of "slave" - an even stronger term.
8
~ 25 ~
changes the description of Eliezer depending on how Eliezer
perceives himself at that moment.10
In Mikeitz (41, 2), Paroh dreams of 7 cows that had a
pleasant appearance and were exceptionally healthy-looking.
Yoseph would later interpret this as the seven years of plenty.
The Sifsei Chachamim explains that “in the days of plenty, the
people will look pleasing to each other which is the ‘yephos
haMaareh’ … and be given what they are lacking.” Even though
people would not look any different during the famine years, they
would be perceived more favorably during the years of plenty.
In Ki Sisa (33, 11) the Torah relates: "and his attendant
Yehoshua bin Nun ‘naar’ did not move away from the tent (of
Moshe)”. The Eben Ezra asks how the Torah can call Yehoshua
a young man (naar) if he was already 56 years old. 11 The
Ramban opines that in lashon haKodesh the officer with the
more honorable position is referred to as “The Man”, while the
attendant is referred to as “the naar.” Thus, in this verse, from
the perspective of Moshe's position, Yehoshua is referred to as
only a naar.
In Chukas (21, 1) after the petirah of Aharon, the
Canaanite nation promptly wages war against Bnei Yisrael. The
Midrash Rabah describes that Amalek appeared to Bnei Yisrael as
Canaanites even though it was really Amalek in order that Bnei
Yisrael would pray to Hashem in a manner that did not violate
Hashem’s oath to Eisav (of whom Amalek was a descendant).
Rashi says that their language was that of Canaan, while the Ohr
Rabeinu Bachya has a different approach and opines that Eliezer acted
differently when he felt that the Shechinah was with him.
11
The calculation is based on Zevachim 118b.
10
~ 26 ~
HaChayim explains that their clothing looked like Canaanite
clothing. Other Midrashic sources (Yalkut and Midrash Agadah)
say that their clothing and language were like Canaanim but they
did not look like Canaanim12. Again the Torah identifies a
nation based on a Bnei Yisrael’s perspective, and not on the
reality13.
Paroh’s Avadim
What is problematic about the usage of avadim during
the episode of the ten plagues is not so much that the term
“avadim” is used, but, rather, that only this term is used. This
suggests that Paroh’s reign was too dictatorial. He did not
respect his officers. They were his servants/slaves, because that
was what they were from Paroh’s perspective. Hence, the literal
translation of avadim into servants by the English commentators
is actually quite appropriate from this perspective.
Such an idea is discussed in Orchos Tzadikim (Shetikah,
Leitzanus chelek 2): “A person mocks others because they are not
successful with money and honor ... they are contemptible in his
eyes. This stems from haughtiness and sometimes from a relaxed
lifestyle and excessive pleasure ...” Paroh would be identified with
This is also found in an alternative manuscript of Rashi, as quoted in the
Toras Chayim footnotes.
13
Another potential source for this idea can be found by the appearance of the
angels to Avraham at the beginning of Parshas VaYeira (18, 2) as “Anashim”,
and later as “Malachim” (19, 1) to Lot. The Misrash Rabah (50, 2) has
several explanations. Rashi provides 2 of the reasons, and comments (in a
slightly different way from R’ Levi in the Midrash Rabah) that Avraham was
accustomed to seeing angels, so they were only like people to him (the Gur
Aryeh expands on this Rashi). However, the discussion becomes more
complicated because with Lot, both “Malachim” and “Anashim are used, as
discussed by Rabeinu Bachya and the Abarbanel.
12
~ 27 ~
these characteristics. Therefore, it came natural to him to look
disparagingly on others, even his high-ranking officers.
Even though he was the king, Paroh‘s conceit was a great
character flaw. The Rambam (Melachim 2, 6) describes how a
king should not think greatly of himself, and should not
accustom himself in an overly conceited manner with respect to
his people. He should always act with great humility. The Kesef
Mishnah comments that while a king should be feared greatly by
the people (and not necessarily show honor to others), that is
particularly in a public forum. In private, he should honor
everyone (based on Rashi in Kesuvos 103b). This is sensible,
because if a ruler instills such trepidation in private among even
his officers, his erroneous decisions will not be disputed 14.
This flaw with Paroh and how it affects his officers plays
a key role in the materialization of the ten plagues.
To be continued…
For example, see Sanhedrin (19a) regarding such a similar behavior by the
other judges in the story of Shimon ben Shetach and Yanai HaMelech.
14
~ 28 ~
Hungry on Erev Pesach: What to Eat
Yitzy Kopstick
One of the most confusing aspects of Erev Pesach is what
food can you eat and when during the day can you eat it. The
Mishna in the tenth perek of Meseches Pesachim states that one
must stop eating all foods “close to Mincha”. The Rashbam
explains that “close to Mincha” means at the end of the ninth
hour of the day so that you go into the Seder with an appetite and
therefore there will be hiddur mitzva.
The obvious question is what food is the Mishnah
talking about? Is it chametz? Is it matzah? Or is it something
else? We know it can’t be chametz because chametz has to be
destroyed by the 6th hour in the day. We know it can’t mean
matzah because the minhag is not to eat matzah from either a
month, two weeks, or a day before Pesach. So what food are we
left with?
Tosfos answers that the Mishnah is talking about matzah
ashirah – a rich man’s bread. Matzah ashirah is matzah that is
made with flour and juices instead of water to give the matzah
extra flavor.
What about a case of Erev Pesach that falls out on
Shabbos? This is a very tricky situation since we need to eat three
seudos on Shabbos but we know that we need to get rid of all our
chametz before Shabbos. We also remember that we are unable
to use matzah at these meals (as mentioned above). So for Friday
night and Shabbos day, a person can prepare 2 meals with
chametz as long as he finishes his meals before the fifth hour of
~ 29 ~
the day. But what can we eat to be mekayem the mitzvah of
seudas shlishis?
The Shulchan Aruch brings down this case and follows
the opinion of Tosfos. He answers that you are able to eat
matzah ashirah because it is not being eaten at the Seder. The
Ramah argues and says that you cannot eat matzah ashirah, and
the only foods you can eat are fruits, meat, and fish. While not
ideal, this is the only option since we can’t eat chametz or matzah.
Ashkenazim hold like the Ramah, while Sephardim hold like the
Shulchan Aruch and Tosfos.
Chag Kasher V’Sameach and Betayavon!
~ 30 ~
Chametz Nooksha
Zachary Rothenberg
There are many different types of Chametz, one of them
being Chametz Nooksha. Chametz Nooksha is something that is
non-edible and was started but not finished [Editor’s Note:
Medicines, cosmetics and glues are commonly referred to as
Chametz Nooksha]. In fact, unlike normal Chametz where one
would be chayav karet, one would not be chayav karet with
Chametz Nooksha because of the pasuk in Parshat Bo that says
“Kol Machmetzat Lo Tochaylo” (referring to Chametz
Nooksha).
The obvious question that arises is that if you’re not
Chayav Karet (like a normal case of Chametz) then is Chametz
Nooksha basically Chametz or is it not Chametz at all and we
just don’t eat it because of the pasuk in Parshat Bo? The answer
lies in the Machloket between Tosafot and Rashi. Tosafot says
that Chametz Nooksha is not real Chametz because he says that if
one finds Chametz Nooksha on his Pesach table then he should
simply remove it. However, Rashi on the other hand disagrees
and says that Chametz Nooksha is treated as real Chametz and
one violates “Ba’al yei’ra’eh u’ba’al yi’matzei” by allowing
Chametz Nooksha to be seen or found in one’s possession on
Pesach.
~ 31 ~
Just Saying…
Rabbi Moshe Schapiro
Say What?
The Ten Commandments are introduced by the verse,
““Va-yedaber Elokim et kol ha-devarim ha-eleh lemor,” - “And
God spoke all these matters, saying” (Shemot 20:1) a variation of
the more common, “Va-yedaber Hashem el Moshe lemor” “And Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying.” The problem in
translating this ubiquitous verse is the redundancy of the two
verbs va-yedaber and lemor, but the translation “Hashem spoke
to Moshe saying,” which is suggested by many commentators1 is
still awkward and redundant. It would have read more concisely
and simply as, “and God spoke to Moshe,” followed by the
specific commandment. Ramban adds a new dimension to the
word lemor, suggesting that it comes to emphasize the “clarity of
the matter,” implying exactness and explicitness. 2 However, R.
Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg3 points out that in many cases,
particularly in the context of the Ten Commandments, the
wording would still be redundant. The verse already states that
“God spoke all these matters”; there is no need to further stress
the clarity or exactness of God’s speech.
The Sifra4 understands that the familiar translation
“saying” is really not correct. The word lemor is an infinitive and
1
See Ibn Ezra Shemot 31:12 and Rashbam Bereshit 8:16.
2
Ramban Shemot 6:10.
3
HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, Shemot 20:1 and Vayikra 1:1
4
Vayikra 1
~ 32 ~
the more precise translation should be, “And God spoke to
Moshe, to say.” In other words, God taught Moshe a
commandment and instructed him “to say,” i.e., to repeat it to the
Jewish people. Even with this new insight the opening verse of the
Ten Commandments is still problematic. According to our new
reading it should be rendered, “And God spoke all these matters,
to say.” However, here God was not speaking to Moshe Rabbenu
and telling him to communicate the mitzvot to the Jewish people.
He was speaking directly to each and every Jew at the foot of Mt.
Sinai. What do the words “to say” mean in such a context? To
whom was God directing the instruction “to say?”
Not To Say the Least
When God set forth the Ten Commandments before the
Jewish people at Mt. Sinai, we could not witness the events in a
detached manner. God’s Torah should not be an object of
disinterested observation. “And God spoke all these matters, to
say” means that God demanded from us “to say”- to respond.
The Mekhilta5 records a dispute between R. Yishmael and R.
Akiva regarding the nature of that response. R. Yishmael
contended that when God presented a positive commandment
such as, “Honor your father and mother” the Jewish people
responded “Yes! We will honor our fathers and mothers.” When
God introduced a negative commandment like, “Do not murder,”
the response was, “No! We will not murder.” However, R. Akiva
envisioned the exchange differently. Even the negative
commandments like “Do not murder” were accepted with the
positive response, “Yes! We will not murder.” R. Yishmael’s
opinion is more intuitive linguistically and conceptually. Why did
5
Yitro, BaChodesh 4
~ 33 ~
R. Akiva claim that the Jewish people responded to both positive
and negative commandments with the affirmation “Yes?”
R. Gedalyah Schorr6 explains that the appreciation for
the depth and breadth of the mitzvot is what underlies R. Akiva’s
insistence that the Jewish people responded to both positive and
negative commandments in the affirmative. When God said, “Do
not murder,” the nation understood in that proscription
something far more lofty and demanding than a prohibition
against taking human life. To merely answer: “No! We will not
murder,” would have been incomplete. The true depth of the
commandment called for a positive response: “Yes! We will not
murder. We will appreciate the value and sanctity of every human
life. We will not embarrass or cause harm to another human
being, which can be likened to murder. Yes! We understand that
in this seemingly simple social restriction there lies the loftiest
guidelines for human interaction and for the development of a
noble spirit!”
Easier Said
The basic structure of the Yom Kippur Machzor is built
around the Vidui Arukh, a long list of sins (46 in all) to which
we confess at various points in the Yom Kippur service.
Obviously, each individual could not have committed all of the
sins on the list, yet we all recite the same long, detailed
confession. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to confess only for
the specific sins that we actually committed? The Chida 7 quotes a
tradition that he received, that there was a righteous individual in
the days of Rambam who did not want to recite this confession
6
Or Gedalyahu, Mo’adim, Likutei Dibburim ‘al Inyanei Shavuot, 5.
7
Chasdei Avot, Avot 2:8
~ 34 ~
because he knew that he had not done any of the sins listed.
Rambam strongly rebuked him, telling him that if he only knew
the extent of true avodat Hashem, he would realize that he had
committed every sin on the list, in some respect.
David ha-Melekh proclaimed, “To every goal I have seen
an end, but Your commandment is exceedingly broad” ( Tehillim
119:96). Every mitzvah contains within it an incalculable number
of ever-ascending levels of perfection. Even if one did not
perform the literal sins which are described in the Yom Kippur
confession, it is certain that one did violate some of the more
subtle aspects of those commandments and therefore confession
is totally appropriate. The commandment to observe the Sabbath,
for instance, which the Torah delineates in only a few verses,
comprises 156 folio leaves in the Babylonian Talmud, about 174
sections of the Shukhan Arukh and countless halakhic compendia
and responsa. David ha-Melekh saw that every material enterprise
is by its very nature restricted. However, the commandments are
limitless, because they emanate from God, who is infinite.
Undaunted by infinity, Chazal placed the Torah’s
expansiveness in perspective. The prophet Yechezkel tells of a
wondrous vision in which he saw a scroll of parchment that was
“inscribed both front and back” (Yechezkel 2:9-10). The
prophet Zechariah also describes a vision in which he saw “a
flying scroll (megillah afah), twenty cubits wide and ten cubits
long” (Zechariah 5:1-2). The Talmud (Eruvin 21a) makes three
assumptions about these two prophecies. First, both Yechezkel
and Zechariah saw the same scroll. Second, the scroll was the
embodiment of the Torah. And third, the word afah does not
mean “flying” but rather, “double,” meaning the scroll was folded
over. The Talmud then goes one to calculate that the twenty by
ten scroll, when unfolded, would be twenty by twenty. Since it
was “inscribed both front and back” the words cover an area of
~ 35 ~
forty by twenty. This yields an area of 800 square cubits. Now,
Yeshayahu proclaimed that God measured the entirety of the
heavens as “one span” (Yeshayahu 40:12) which is half a cubit. In
an area of 800 square cubits there are 3200 spans, and therefore
the Talmud concludes that the ratio of the heavens, the entire
universe, to the Torah, as represented by the scroll, is 1:3200.
But are Chazal limiting the Torah in this Talmudic passage or
expanding its dimensions?
The curious thing about the above passage is that Chazal
did not express the size of the Torah in absolute terms, but as a
ratio to the size of the universe. This is because the Torah is not
limited, but constantly growing. In one of his final speeches to the
nation, Moshe Rabbenu recounted the Jews’ experience at the
foot of the mountain, “These words Hashem spoke to your entire
congregation on the mountain, from the midst of the fire, the
cloud and the thick darkness - a great voice, ve-lo yasaf - and He
inscribed them on two stone tablets and gave them to me”
(Devarim 5:19). The phrase ve-lo yasaf can be understood in two
mutually exclusive ways. Rashi and many other commentaries 8
translate the phrase to mean “that will never repeat.” However,
Targum Onkeles, following the tradition in the Talmud
(Sanhedrin 17a) translates it as “that will never cease.” What does
it mean that God’s voice never ceased even after Matan Torah? R.
Avraham Chaim Schor9 connects this translation with the
assertion of the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 22) that, “Scripture,
Mishnah, Halakhot, Talmud, Toseftot, Haggadot, and even what
a faithful disciple would in the future say in the presence of his
8
9
See Rashbam and Ramban.
Torat Chaim, Sanhedrin ad loc. and at greater length in Bava Metzia 85a.
~ 36 ~
master, were all communicated to Moshe at Sinai.” 10 Everything
was given at Mt. Sinai, because the revelation is ongoing. Every
time a Torah scholar proffers a true insight, he is tapping into the
flow of divine revelation that first emanated from Sinai. Perhaps
Chazal did not posit, as current science does, an expanding
universe. However, our Sages clearly believed in an expanding
Torah, and they expressed the relationship between the Torah
and the universe in terms of a ratio. If the universe is expanding
and the Torah growing accordingly, we must conclude that
indeed, “Your commandment is exceedingly broad.”
Say it Together!
The boundlessness of Torah in the realm of those
commandments that regulate the relationship between finite man
and an infinite God (bein adam la-Makom) is readily
apprehended. However, regarding the commandments that govern
between man and his fellow (bein adam la-chavero) we would be
tempted to suggest that there really isn’t much more to the
commandment “Do not steal” than what it says. The Ten
Commandments themselves can give this impression. The first
five commandments which are primarily bein adam la-Makom are
quite lengthy, developed in multiple verses; whereas the latter five,
which are mainly bein adam la-chavero, are stated succinctly
without any elaboration. Rashi’s comment11 that the two luchot
were exactly equal, despite the obvious fact that the first tablet
contained many more letters, indicates that though the Torah
may offer more explicit information in certain areas, the extent of
every mitzvah is infinite and therefore they are all equal.
Shemot Rabbah 28 explicitly quotes the words ve-lo yasaf to prove that,
“Each of the Sages that arose in every generation received his wisdom from
Sinai.”
11
Shemot 31:18, citing the Midrash Tanchuma (Ki Tisa 16).
10
~ 37 ~
In its translation of the Ten Commandments, the
Targum Yonatan may also be trying to highlight the equality and
immeasurability of all the mitzvot, even those that govern
interpersonal relationships. While translating the first five
commandments essentially literally, the Targum elaborates much
more on the latter five: “My nation, Children of Israel, do not be
murderers, not companions or partners with murderers, and there
should not appear in the Congregation of Israel murderers, and
your children after you should not learn to be with murderers.”
The same lengthy formulation is given regarding adulterers,
thieves, false witnesses and coveters. R. Eliyahu Lopian12 suggests
that the Targum was trying to prevent the mistaken impression
that somehow the mitzvot bein adam la-chavero do not have the
same limitless potential as the mitzvot bein adam la-Makom. “Do
not steal,” is an injunction against taking another person’s
possessions, but there are many more subtle levels and aspects,
with increasingly more demanding expectations for the
development of the religious personality and the perfection of the
human character. As a person grows spiritually, these seemingly
straightforward commandments take on more meaning. “Do not
steal” also means, “Be quiet when others are sleeping” so their
sleep is not stolen. It means, “Do not jaywalk” causing drivers to
stop or slow down, thereby stealing their time.
As the Saying Goes
The Written Torah and the carved tablets of the Law are
finite, though Rashi and Targum Yonatan indicate that even the
Written Torah is more expansive than might appear at first
glance. The Torah that is constantly expanding and developing is
12
Quoted by R. Yehudah Heshil Levenberg, Imrei Chen al HaTorah, v.3 p.12.
~ 38 ~
the Oral Torah, the Torah she-be-al peh. Rashi13 identifies the
scroll that Yechezkel and Zechariah saw as being the physical
embodiment of the Torah she-be-al peh, and it was to accept this
limitless Oral Torah that the Jews at Mt. Sinai responded, “Yes”
with all the boundless possibilities that an affirmative response
can evoke. As we noted, R. Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg 14
questioned the opinion of Ramban, that the word “lemor” comes
to emphasize the “clarity of the matter,” because in many
occurrences of the word, such as in the opening verse of the Ten
Commandments, the clarity is already implied. However, he does
not entirely abandon Ramban’s concept of clarity, suggesting that
whereas Va-yedaber refers to the speaking of the words of the
written Torah, lemor connotes the further clarity and elucidation
of the Oral Tradition. Every mitzvah was given not only with its
exact, recorded wording, but with the additional clarifications,
stipulations and principles contained in the Torah she-be-al peh.15
The Netziv adopts a similar approach to R.
Mecklenburg, but retains Chazal’’s translation of the word lemor
as “to say.” The Talmud Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 4:2) quotes an
intriguing statement from the sage R. Yannai: “If the Torah had
been given cut and dried we would not have a leg to stand on.” In
other words, had every halakhic decision been rendered
unambiguously in the Chumash, we would not have been able to
adapt and apply the Torah to new situations and circumstances.
The Talmud states that R. Yannai’s source is the verse “And
Hashem spoke to Moshe” and posits a conversation in which
Moshe pleaded with Hashem to render decisive halakhic rulings.
Eruvin 21a s.v. Vayifros.
Op cit. Vayikra.
15
Cf. Malbim, Shemot 12:1 who offers a similar interpretation, but inverts the
meaning of va-yedaber and lemor.
13
14
~ 39 ~
However, God responded that He would not do so and that we
must follow the majority “so that the Torah may be interpreted
in forty-nine ways to impurity and in forty-nine ways to purity.”
The Yerushalmi’s message is that the Torah must be
flexible and open to multiple interpretations in order to be
relevant. However, it is not clear how R. Yannai derived this
lesson from the verse “And Hashem spoke to Moshe.” The
Netziv16 insists that the passage in the Yerushalmi meant to quote
the verse in full, “And Hashem spoke to Moshe to say [lemor].”
He points to Rabbenu Chananel in his commentary to Sanhedrin
36a, who quotes this passage with the full verse. God spoke ( vayedaber) to Moshe the specific words that are recorded in the
Torah. However, lemor means that Hashem gave us the Torah
“to say.” We must argue and debate the forty-nine possibilities of
impurity and the forty-nine possibilities of purity. And it is we
who must reach a conclusion and say it aloud. The Torah was not
given as a static body of law, but as a dynamic, living interaction
between the infinite wisdom of God and the finite mind of man.
R. Samson Raphael Hirsch17 applies this understanding
directly to the introductory verse of the Ten Commandments.
Lemor was not a demand for a response, as the Mekhilta
understood it, rather a directive to the Jewish people “to say,”
namely to inform and educate others. “And God spoke all these
matters, to say” means we must transmit the Tradition received at
Mt. Sinai, which is encapsulated in the Ten Commandments, to
Ha’amek Davar, Vayikra 1:1. R. David Frankel in his commentary on the
Yerushalmi (Sheyarei Korban ad loc.) quotes a similar interpretation from the
Yefeh Mareh, but rejects it. He offers a different suggestion in his commentary
(Korban HaEdah ad loc.). See also Penei Moshe ad loc.
17
Bereshit 1:22.
16
~ 40 ~
our children and our students. R. Hirsch suggests that Chazal
understood the connotation of the word lemor in this way as well.
Although the seven Noahide Commandments are associated with
the eponymous Noach, six of them were originally given to Adam
on his first day in Gan Eden. The Talmud derives each
commandment from a different word in the verse, “And Hashem
commanded Adam to say [lemor], ‘Of every tree of the Garden
you may freely eat” (Bereshit 2:16). From the word lemor, the
Talmud (Sanhedrin 56b) derives the prohibition of forbidden
sexual relations (gilui arayot). While the Talmud supports its
assertion from another verse containing the Hebrew root amr, the
connection seems tenuous at best. R. Hirsch18 explains that the
word lemor (to say) implies that each command of God is not
only to be followed, but transmitted to others, particularly the
next generation. The transmission of the Masorah takes place
primarily within the context of the family. It is therefore essential
that there be healthy, intact families. Since gilui arayot threatens
and undermines the very existence of the family unit in which the
Tradition can thrive and continue, Chazal saw in the word lemor
a command to preserve the family.
What Are We Saying?
Every word in the Torah can teach us important lessons
and impart precious insights. The word lemor, which often just
slips by us as we read through Chumash, is no exception. Lemor
is a direct appeal that demands a response. Lemor is a profound
statement about the possibilities of growth and spiritual elevation.
In a generation when we see Jews, superficially religious, paraded
on the front page of newspapers indicted for stealing and cheating
and worse, we must tremble when we read “Va-yedaber Hashem
el Moshe lemor.” In a generation when the vast majority of Jews
18
Bereshit 2:16.
~ 41 ~
do not observe Shabbat on even the most basic level, we must
tremble when we read “Va-yedaber Hashem el Moshe lemor.”
Engaging in actual melachah on Shabbat, actually stealing and
murdering- these are the basics whose violation should have been
unthinkable. They should be taken for granted. We should be
striving for the loftiest levels of human perfection both in the
areas of bein adam la-Makom and bein adam la-chavero.
Unfortunately, we cannot climb the ladder to heaven if
we have not yet placed our feet firmly on the first rung.
Ultimately, lemor is a challenge to every generation to devotedly
transmit the content, methodology and sensibilities of Torah to
the next generation so that we will continue to grow spiritually as
a people. Shavuot is the holiday on which we celebrate the giving
of the Torah at Mount Sinai. It is our sacred obligation to
educate our children and the wider Jewish community, to reach
out to every Jew and say the words of Torah that God asked us to
say so many millennia ago. The challenge that sincerely religious
people face is to continue to grow in personal sanctity, refining
and elevating our observance of the Torah’s commandments,
while at the same time remaining aware of and sensitive to the
most elementary spiritual needs of our children and our
neighbors. We must work for the day when all Jews will respond
“Yes!” to God’s call to the covenant and together we will explore
the depth and breadth of the Torah and its commandments.
~ 42 ~
Safeik Sefiras HaOmer
Tzvi Schapiro
The Gemara in Menachos (daf 66a) brings down a
machlokes between Ameimar and some Amoraim about the
correct way to count the Omer. Ameimar counted only the days
and didn’t count the weeks. But other Amoraim counted both the
days and the weeks.
Tosafos brings down a Bahag which says, that if a person
forgot to count one day, he cannot count the rest of the Omer
(with a brachah) because the pasuk says “sheva shavuos temimos”.
Tosafos says, that this can’t be - he can count the rest of the
Omer (with a brachah).
The Mechaber paskens (489:8) that we are choshesh like
the Bahag. So, if one forgot to count one day, the next day he
should count without a brachah. Then the Mechaber elaborates:
however, if he is not sure if he counted on a certain day, he can
count the rest of the Omer with a brachah.
The Mishnah Berurah explains the reasoning behind this
last comment of the Mechaber. For if he is not sure if he counted
or not, it turns into a sfek-sfeka. Did he count, or did he not
count? And even if he didn’t count we can rely on Tosafos.
The Mishnah Berurah comments further based on the
Gemara in Menachos. If one is not sure whether he counted the
days and not the weeks, or vice versa, he can count the rest of the
days with a brachah because it is a sfek-sfeka; maybe he counted
right and even if he counted wrong we can rely on Ameimar.
~ 43 ~
What to Eat on Erev Pesach
Avraham Zev Sobolofsky
The ‫ משנה‬on :‫ פסחים צט‬says that on ‫ ערב פסח‬later in the
afternoon you cannot eat. ‫ תוספות‬asks a question: What are you
not able to eat? If the ‫ משנה‬is talking about ‫חמץ‬, then you have
to stop eating in the morning. If it is talking about ‫מצה‬, then you
can’t eat it the whole day. If it is talking about snack food, then
you a can eat it the whole day. ‫ תוספות‬answers that that it is
talking about egg matzah. Only ‫ מצה‬that can be used for the ‫סדר‬
can be eaten on ‫ערב פסח‬. When ‫ ערב פסח‬falls out on ‫שבת‬, it
should be okay to eat egg matzah for ‫סעודת שלישית‬. The ‫רמ"א‬
says that it is our ‫ מנהג‬not to eat egg matzah on ‫פסח‬, therefore
you should eat meat, fish or fruit for ‫סעודת שלישית‬.
~ 44 ~
‫מצות קריאת הלל ביו"ט‬
‫חיים טרזיק‬
‫ד"ת אלו מוקדשים לע"נ ידידי וקרובי‪ ,‬ר' עזריאל ב"ר יעקב זעליג‬
‫קרמביין ז"ל‪ ,‬שהיה עוסק בסוגיא זו בשעה אשר נקטף פתאום בדמי ימיו‪.‬‬
‫איש אשכולות ויקר רוח‪ ,‬ר' עזריאל השפיע בטובו וחנו על כל בני‬
‫משפחתנו בנדיבות הלב ובמידות התרומיות שלו‪ .‬אמרו חז"ל‪ ,‬כל העוסק‬
‫בתורה מבפנים‪ ,‬תורתו מכרזת עליו מבחוץ‪ ,‬וכן היה בר' עזריאל‪ .‬קשה‬
‫עלי פרידתו‪ .‬יה"ר שזכותו יגן על רעיתו האהובה‪ ,‬ובנו ובנותיו הנחמדים‪,‬‬
‫ועל כל משפחתנו‪ ,‬ובזכותו לא ימוש ספר התורה מזרעו וזרע זרעו עד‬
‫עולם‪.‬‬
‫*‬
‫*‬
‫*‬
‫*‬
‫*‬
‫*‬
‫*‬
‫*‬
‫*‬
‫*‬
‫א) מח' רמב"ם – ראב"ד אם קריאת הלל ביו"ט מצוה מדברי סופרים או‬
‫מדברי קבלה‬
‫בריש פ"ב דברכות (י"ד‪ ,‬א) אמרו‪ ,‬בהלל ומגילה מהו שיפסיק‪ ,‬אמרינן‬
‫ק"ו ק"ש דאורייתא פוסק הלל דרבנן מבעיא‪ ,‬או דלמא פרסומי ניסא‬
‫עדיף‪ ,‬ומדקאמר סתמא הלל מדרבנן‪ ,‬מש' דס"ל קריאת הלל אפי' של י"ט‬
‫אינו אלא מדרבנן‪ .‬וכ"פ הרמב"ם בהל' חנוכה (ג‪ ,‬ו) וז"ל‪ :‬ולא הלל של‬
‫חנוכה בלבד הוא שמדברי סופרים‪ ,‬אלא קריאת ההלל לעולם מדברי‬
‫סופרים בכל הימים שגומרים בהן את ההלל‪ .‬וכ"כ בסה"מ‪ ,‬שרש ראשון‪,‬‬
‫שחלק על שיטת הבה"ג שמנה קריאת הלל כמ"ע‪ ,‬והשיג עליו הרמב"ם‬
‫שאין ראוי למנות בכלל תרי"ג מצות שהם מדרבנן‪.‬‬
‫והראב"ד בהשגות שם כתב וז"ל‪ :‬א"א ויש בהם עשה מדברי קבלה השיר‬
‫יהיה לכם כליל התקדש חג‪ .‬ומבואר דס"ל שלפעמים קריאת הלל מצוה‬
‫מדברי קבלה‪ .‬והמ"מ שם כתב שדבריו מיוסדים על הא דאיתא בפסחים‬
‫(קי"ז‪ ,‬א) שנביאים שביניהם תקנו להן לישראל שיהו אומרים הלל על כל‬
‫צרה כשנגאלין ממנה‪ ,‬אלמא משמע שקריאת הלל תקנה מדברי קבלה‪.‬‬
‫~ ‪~ 45‬‬
‫וכתב המ"מ לישב שיטת הרמב"ם שיש ב' דינים במצות הלל – יש מצוה‬
‫לקרו א הלל על כל צרה כשנגאלים ממנה והיא מצוה מדברי קבלה‪ ,‬ויש‬
‫מצוה לקרוא הלל בי"ח ימים הקבועים והיא מצוה מדברי סופרים‪.‬‬
‫והכס"מ תמה על הראב"ד והמ"מ‪ ,‬מה הרעש הזה שטענו נגד הרמב"ם‪,‬‬
‫בודאי אף מצות דברי קבלה ד"ס מיקריא‪ ,‬דהלא מקרא מגילה דברי קבלה‬
‫נינהו‪ ,‬ואפ"ה כתב הרמב"ם שהוא מ"ע מדברי סופרים (הל' מגילה א‪ ,‬א)‪,‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫אלא ודאי לדעת הרמב"ם מצות הלל לעולם מדרבנן‪ ,‬כמש"כ בסה"מ‪.‬‬
‫ב) שיטת הרמב"ן שקריאת הלל ביו"ט מצוה מה"ת‬
‫הרמב"ן בהשגותיו לסה"מ (שרש ראשון) מחזיק בשיטת הבה"ג וכתב‬
‫שהלל יסודו מה"ת‪ ,‬וה"ל או הלכה למשה מסיני‪ ,‬או שהוא בכלל השמחה‬
‫שנצטוינו בה ביו"ט‪ .‬וכתב הרמב"ן שגדר המצוה היא שיאמרו ישראל‬
‫במועדיהם שירה לה' שהוציאם ממצרים וקרע להם את הים והבדילם‬
‫לעבודתו‪ ,‬ובא דוד לאחר זמן ותקן להם את ההלל הזה כדי שישירו בו‪,‬‬
‫וה"ל כמו מצות תפילה או בהמ"ז או קידוש בשבת‪ ,‬שהמצוה מה"ת לומר‬
‫דברים בעלמא‪ ,‬כל אחד ואחד כפי צחות לשונו וחכמתו‪ ,‬עד שבאו‬
‫הנביאים ותקנו נוסח מתוקן הלשון וצח המליצה‪ .‬מאידך גיסא‪ ,‬כתב‬
‫הרמב"ן‪ ,‬אפשר שהמצוה מה"ת לומר ממש המזמורים של ההלל שאנו‬
‫אומרים‪ ,‬שהם נתחברו ע"י משה רבינו‪ ,‬וכמו שכבר מצינו שחז"ל ייחסו‬
‫כמה מזמורי תהילים לנביאים מיוחדים שקדמו לדוד המלך‪( .‬ועי' מה‬
‫שהקשנו על מהלך זה לקמן‪).‬‬
‫מ"מ‪ ,‬הביא הרמב"ן כמה ראיות ליסודו שקריאת בהלל ביו"ט מצוה‬
‫מה"ת‪:‬‬
‫‪ – 1‬בגמ' תענית (כ"ח‪ ,‬ב)‪ ,‬אמר רבא זאת אומרת הלילא דבריש ירחא‬
‫לאו דאורייתא‪ ,‬דש"מ דשאר הלל דאורייתא הוא (ודלא כדפי' רש"י שם)‪.‬‬
‫‪ 1‬בכלל אי דברי קבלה כד"ת או כד"ס‪ ,‬ראה בביאור הגר"א א"ח סי' תרפ"ו‪ ,‬ס"א‪,‬‬
‫שנחלקו בזה הבב לי והירושלמי‪ ,‬שלבבלי נחשבו כד"ת ולירושלמי נחשבו כד"ס‪.‬‬
‫~ ‪~ 46‬‬
‫‪ – 2‬בפסחים (קי"ז‪ ,‬א)‪ ,‬הלל זה מי אמרו‪ ,‬ר' יוסי אומר אלעזר בני אומר‬
‫משה וישראל אמרוהו בשעה שעלו מן הים‪ ,‬וחלוקין עליו חביריו לומר‬
‫שדוד אמרו ונראין דבריו מדבריהן‪ ,‬אפשר ישראל שחטו את פסחיהן‬
‫ונטלו לולביהן ולא אמרו שירה‪ ,‬ודייק מכאן הרמב"ן דאם איברא דהלל‬
‫מדבריהם תקנו‪ ,‬מאי קא קשיא ליה לר' יוסי‪( .‬מכאן דייק הרמב"ן‬
‫שהמצוה לא רק לומר שירות ותשבחות להקב"ה‪ ,‬אלא לקרות פרשיות‬
‫הלל ממש כמו שהן כתובים בספר תהילים‪ .‬אולם‪ ,‬כבר הקשה המהרש"א‪,‬‬
‫על אתר‪ ,‬האיך אמרו משה וישראל בית אהרן בטחו בה'‪ ,‬יברך את בית‬
‫אהרן‪ ,‬וכו'‪ ,‬והרי עדיין אז לא ניתנה כהונה לאהרן‪ ,‬וכתב שיש ליישב‪,‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫וצ"ע‪).‬‬
‫‪ – 3‬ובערכין (י"א‪ ,‬א)‪ ,‬מנין לעיקר שירה מה"ת‪ ,‬מהכא תחת אשר לא‬
‫עבדת את ה' א‪-‬לקיך בשמחה ובטוב לבב‪ ,‬איזו היא עבודה שבשמחה וטוב‬
‫לבב‪ ,‬הוי אומר זה שירה‪ .‬א"כ מאחר שמצינו כי השירה נקראת שמחה‪,‬‬
‫ובי ו"ט נתחייבנו לשמוח בכל מיני שמחה‪ ,‬אפשר שנדרוש ביו"ט שתהא‬
‫השירה מכללן‪.‬‬
‫ומה שהבאנו לעיל מפ"ב דברכות שהלל מדרבנן‪ ,‬תי' הרמב"ן דקמיירי‬
‫בהלל דחנוכה ובימים שאין גומרים בהן את ההלל‪ .‬והרא"ה תי' בשם רבו‬
‫(אפשר שכיון לרמב"ן) שאפשר שר"ל שהלל יסודו מה"ת‪ ,‬אבל נוסח‬
‫ההלל מדרבנן וכמו תפילה‪( .‬אבל זה לא מתאים עם מה שכתבנו לעיל‬
‫שרצה הרמב"ן לדייק מהגמ' בפסחים שנוסח ההלל מספר תהילים מה"ת‪).‬‬
‫יש לצרף לכאן מה שכתב הרמב"ן בפירושו על התורה (ויקרא‪ ,‬כ"ג‪ ,‬ב)‪,‬‬
‫וז"ל‪:‬‬
‫‪ 2‬על מימרא של ר' יוסי‪ ,‬ראה עוד בתוספתא פסחים ספ"ח‪ :‬אלו דברים ששוה בהן פסח‬
‫מצרים לפסח דורות ‪ . . .‬פסח מצרים טעון שיר ופסח דורות טעון שיר‪ ,‬ובמנחת בכורים‬
‫שם ביאר שיר פי' הלל דהלל ישראל אמרו במצרים שא"א ששחטו את פסחיהן ולא‬
‫אמרו שירה‪ .‬ועוד בפדר"א סוף פמ"ח‪ ,‬ר' יהודה אומר כל אותה הלילה היו ישראל‬
‫אוכלין ושותין יין ושמחים ומהללים להקב"ה בקול גדול והמצרים היו צועקים במר נפש‬
‫על המגפה שבאה עליהם‪.‬‬
‫~ ‪~ 47‬‬
‫"וטעם מקראי קדש‪ ,‬שיהיו ביום הזה כולם קרואים ונאספים‬
‫לקדש אותו‪ ,‬כי מצוה היא על ישראל‬
‫להקבץ בבית הא‪-‬לקים ביום מועד לקדש היום בפרהסיא‬
‫בתפילה והלל לק‪-‬ל בכסות נקיה‪ ,‬ולעשות‬
‫אותו יום משתה ‪" . . .‬‬
‫וראיתי ביאור יפה לשיטת הרמב"ן בספר מועדים וזמנים (ח"ז סי' קי"ג)‪,‬‬
‫שבא לבאר יסוד לעיקר מצות שמחה ביו"ט‪ ,‬שמצינו לכמה ראשונים‬
‫שבזמן המקדש מצות שמחת יו"ט מחייב אכילת בשר משלמי שמחה‬
‫דוקא‪ ,‬ולא סגי בבשר חולין גרידא‪ .‬וביאור הדבר הוא דביו"ט בעינן‬
‫שמחה רוחנית עם שמחה גשמית‪ ,‬ולכן עיקרה בבשר קדש‪ ,‬שיש בה הנאה‬
‫של רוחניות משום קיום מצות אכילת קדשים והנאה גשמית דאכילת‬
‫בשר‪ .‬ולפ"ז נראה לדעת הרמב"ן דכן הוא השמחה בהלל‪ ,‬שבשירה לה'‬
‫יש שיתוף של הנאה רוחנית שמהלל ומשבח לא‪-‬לקינו‪ ,‬והנאה גשמית‬
‫שהיא השירה עצמה‪ ,‬וזהו מצות שמחת יו"ט מה"ת בשלמותה‪.‬‬
‫ג) ביאור בשיטת רש"י‬
‫אפשר שאף רש"י ס"ל דיסוד חיוב הלל מה"ת כדעת הרמב"ן‪.‬‬
‫הנה שנינו בפ"ב דברכות (כ‪ ,‬ב) נשים חייבות בתפילה‪ ,‬ופרכינן פשיטא‪,‬‬
‫ומשני מ"ד הואיל וכתיב ביה ערב ובקר וצהרים כמ"ע שהז"ג דמי‪ ,‬קמ"ל‪,‬‬
‫וכתבו שם בתוס' (ד"ה בתפילה) דרש"י לא גריס פשיטא וכו'‪ ,‬שהרי‬
‫תפילה דרבנן היא ומאי מ"ע שהז"ג שייכי ביה‪ ,‬והקשו עליו בתוס' מהא‬
‫דהלל דרבנן ונשים פטורות מהאי טעמא דמ"ע שהז"ג היא‪ ,‬וכדמוכח‬
‫בסוכה (ל"ח‪ ,‬א) שנשים אינן מוציאות אנשים מחובת הלל הואיל שהן‬
‫אינן מחויבות בהלל‪ ,‬וא"כ מוכח דשייך לפטור נשים אף ממצות דרבנן‬
‫מטעם מ"ע שז"ג‪ ,‬ודלא כמו שפי' רש"י‪.‬‬
‫~ ‪~ 48‬‬
‫ובספר כפות תמרים (על התוס' שם ד"ה מי שהיה) תי' דעת רש"י דס"ל‬
‫כאלו שסוברים שקריאת הלל מצוה מה"ת‪ ,‬ולכן שייך ביה הפטור של‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫מ"ע שז"ג‪ ,‬וסליק קושית התוס'‪.‬‬
‫וע"ע בתורה שלמה חי"א‪ ,‬בסי' כ"ה במלואים‪ ,‬שהביא עוד שיטות‬
‫מהראשונים שסברו שהלל דאורייתא‪ ,‬והביא כמה מדרשי חז"ל לתמוך‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫שיטתם‪.‬‬
‫ד) ישוב לתמיהת השאג"א על שיטת הרמב"ן‬
‫בשו"ת שאג"א (סי' ס"ט) הרבה להקשות של שיטת הרמב"ן‪ ,‬ודחה כל‬
‫ראיותיו‪ ,‬ועל כן פסק לדינא שאם ספק אמר הלל ביו"ט ספק לא אמר‪,‬‬
‫א"צ לחזור ולומר ככל ספקות של דבריהם‪ ,‬ע"ש‪ .‬אמנם נ"ל שאולי‬
‫אפשר לישב חד מתמיהותיו‪.‬‬
‫הנה בר"ה (ו‪ ,‬ב) נחלקו ר' זירא ואביי אם נשים מחויבות במצות שמחה‬
‫ביו"ט‪ ,‬שר"ז ס"ל שנשים מחויבות ואביי ס"ל שאשה בעלה משמחה‪.‬‬
‫והקשה השאג"א שאם הלל של יו"ט בכלל מצות שמחת יו"ט‪ ,‬כמש"כ‬
‫הרמב"ן‪ ,‬לר"ז דס"ל דנשים חייבות במצות שמחה מה"ת‪ ,‬צ"ל דחייבות‬
‫נמי בהלל של יו"ט‪ ,‬וזה אינו‪ ,‬כמו שהבאנו לעיל מסוכה (ל"ח‪ ,‬א)‪ ,‬שנשים‬
‫אינן יכולות להוציא בר חיובא מידי חובת הלל‪ .‬וא"כ‪ ,‬תמה השאג"א‪,‬‬
‫למה לר"ז לא אמרינן שאשה נמי חייבת בהלל‪ ,‬ולא מצינו חיוב כזה בשום‬
‫דוכתא בש"ס או בפוסקים‪.‬‬
‫וכך נראה לישב‪ .‬הנה דעת הרמב"ם בהל' חגיגה (א‪ ,‬א) שנשים חייבות‬
‫במצות שמחת יו"ט מה"ת‪ ,‬כדעת ר' זירא‪ 5.‬אולם‪ ,‬בהל' שביתת יו"ט (ו‪,‬‬
‫‪ 3‬כן שמעתי ממו"ר ר' אבא ברונשפיגעל שליט"א‪.‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ומצאתי בפי' הרד"ל על פ דר"א פ"ג‪ ,‬ס"ק ד'‪ ,‬שאף הגר"א מסכים שמצות הלל מה"ת‪,‬‬
‫ע"ש‪ .‬אמנם‪ ,‬השווה לביאור הגר"א א"ח סי' כ"ב‪ ,‬שכתב שטעם שאין מברכין שהחיינו‬
‫קודם קריאת הלל משום שהלל אינו מצוה בפ"ע‪ ,‬כמ"ש בפסחים אפשר ישראל שוחטין‬
‫פסחיהן ונוטלין לולביהן ולא אומרים שירה‪ ,‬וצ"ע‪.‬‬
‫~ ‪~ 49‬‬
‫י"ז‪-‬י"ח) משמע מלשון הרמב"ם דאין חובת השמחה תלויה בה אלא‬
‫בב עלה שישמחנה במאכל ומשתה וכלי פשטן‪ .‬וז"ל‪ :‬וחייב אדם להיות‬
‫בהן שמח וטוב לב הוא ובניו ואשתו ובני ביתו וכל הנלוים עליו שנאמר‬
‫ושמחת בחגך וגו'‪ .‬אע"פ שהשמחה האמורה כאן היא קרבן שלמים ‪. . .‬‬
‫יש בכלל אותה שמחה לשמוח הוא ובניו ובני ביתו כל אחד ואחד כראוי‬
‫לו‪ .‬כיצד הקטנים נותן להם קליות ואגוזים ומגדנות‪ .‬והנשים קונה להן‬
‫בגדים ותכשיטין נאים כפי ממונו‪ .‬והאנשים אוכלים בשר ושותין יין שאין‬
‫שמחה אלא בבשר ואין שמחה אלא ביין ‪ . . .‬ע"כ‪.‬‬
‫ומן התימה הוא‪ ,‬שלא כתב הרמב"ם בהל' שביתת יו"ט בפשטות שנשים‬
‫חיובות בעצמן בשמחת יו"ט כמו שכתב בפשטות בהל' חגיגה‪ .‬אדרבה‪,‬‬
‫משמע שהמצוה רק על הבעל שישמחנה‪ .‬ונראה מדבריו שס"ל שלר' זירא‬
‫נשים חייבות בעצמן במצות שלמי שמחה דוקא‪ ,‬אבל בשאר מיני שמחה‬
‫תלויים הן בבעליהן‪ ,‬וכדאביי‪.‬‬
‫וכך נראה ג"כ מלשון הרמב"ם בסה"מ (מ"ע נ"ד)‪:‬‬
‫"והמצוה הנ"ד היא שצונו לשמוח ברגלים והוא אמרו‬
‫ית' ושמחת בחגך ‪. . .‬והענין הראשון הרמוז אליו בצווי‬
‫הזה הוא שיקריב קרבן שלמים על כל פנים‪ .‬ואלו‬
‫השלמים נוספים על שלמי חגיגה והם נקראים בתלמוד‬
‫שלמי שמחה‪ .‬ומהקרבת שלמים אלו אמרו (חגיגה ו‪ ,‬ב‪,‬‬
‫קידושין ל"ד‪ ,‬א) נשים חייבות בשמחה ‪ . . .‬וכולל‬
‫באמרו ושמחת בחגך מה שאמרו ג"כ שמח בכל מיני‬
‫שמחה‪ .‬ומזה לאכול בשר ביו"ט ולשתות יין וללבוש‬
‫בגדים חדשים ולחלק פרות ומיני מתיקה לקטנים‬
‫‪ 5‬אע"פ שכתבו הכס"מ והלח"מ בהל' חגיגה שהרמב"ם פסק כאביי‪ ,‬ע"ש‪ ,‬יותר נראים‬
‫דברי הלח"מ בהל' מעשה קרבנות (י"ד‪ ,‬י"ד) שהכריע מדפסק הרמב"ם שנשים חייבות‬
‫בבל תאחר דס"ל כר' זירא‪ .‬וכ"כ השאג"א (סי' ס"ו) והמנ"ח (מצוה תפ"ח) בדעת‬
‫הרמב"ם‪ ,‬ע"ש‪.‬‬
‫~ ‪~ 50‬‬
‫ולנשים ‪ .. . .‬ולשון גמר פסחים (ק"ט‪ ,‬א) חייב אדם‬
‫לשמח בניו ובני ביתו ברגל וכו'‪".‬‬
‫(וכ"ה בספר החינוך מצוה תפ"ח – "ובשביל הקרבת השלמים אמרו ז"ל‬
‫נשים חייבות בשמחה‪ ,‬לומר שאף הן חייבות להביא שלמי שמחה"‪).‬‬
‫והנה נראה שאף כאן חילק הרמב"ם בחובת נשים בין חובתן לגבי שלמי‬
‫שמחה‪ ,‬ובין חובתן לגבי שאר מיני שמחה‪ .‬שרק בחובת שלמי שמחה הן‬
‫מחויבות בעצמן‪ ,‬אבל בשאר מיני שמחה אינן מחויבות בעצמן אלא‬
‫שבעלהן מחויבים לשמחן‪.‬‬
‫כן נ"ל מדיוק ברמב"ם בהלכות ובסה"מ‪ .‬אבל תמיהני‪ ,‬שלא מצאתי אחד‬
‫מן המפרשים שכתבו כזה בדעת הרמב"ם‪ ,‬ואף לא ידענא מנין לרמב"ם‬
‫לחלק בין שלמי שמחה לשאר מיני שמחה בדעת ר' זירא‪ ,‬שלא מצאתי‬
‫שום רמז או סמך לחילוק זה בשום סוגיא שעוסקת בחובת נשים בשמחת‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫יו"ט‪ ,‬וצ"ע‪.‬‬
‫עכ"פ‪ ,‬ע"פ המתבאר יש לישב תמיהת השאג"א שלא מצינו בשום מקום‬
‫שנשים חי יבות לקרות הלל ביו"ט‪ .‬שלפי מה שכתבנו‪ ,‬אף לר"ז חובת‬
‫נשים בשמחת יו"ט דוקא בשלמי השמחה‪ ,‬אבל בשאר מיני שמחה‪ ,‬נשים‬
‫פטורות‪ .‬וא"כ‪ ,‬לדעת הרמב"ן ששאר מיני שמחות כולל עמהם קריאת‬
‫הלל‪ ,‬תו ליכא קושיא למה נשים פטורות מקריאתה‪ ,‬כנ"ל‪.‬‬
‫‪ 6‬הרמב"ם בהלי ע"ז (י"ב‪ ,‬ג) מנה כל מ"ע שז"ג שנשים חייבות‪ ,‬וכלל מצות שמחה‬
‫בכללן‪ ,‬ולא חילק‪.‬‬
‫~ ‪~ 51‬‬
Snatching the ‫מצה‬
Rabbi Michael Zauderer
‫תניא רבי אליעזר אומר חוטפין מצה בלילי פסחים בשביל‬
).‫תינוקות שלא ישנו (פסחים דף קט‬
The ‫ ברייתא‬states in the name of ‫ ר' אליעזר‬that there is
an obligation to be “‫”חוטף‬, to snatch, the matzah on the night of
‫ פסח‬in order that the children do not fall asleep. 1 What is the
reason for the requirement to snatch the ‫ מצה‬and how will that
prevent the children from falling asleep?
The ‫ ראשונים‬offer four possible answers to this question.
Rashi explains that ‫ ר' אליעזר‬requires the lifting and removal of
the ‫ קערה‬during the seder. The change from the regular meal
pattern encourges the child to ask questions and become involved
in the seder thereby preventing the child from falling asleep. This
is similar to the previous gemara which says that ‫ ר' עקיבא‬would
distribute nuts and other treats in order to engage the children
and prevent them from falling asleep.
The Rambam agrees with Rashi that the purpose of the
snatching is to keep the child interested in the seder, but uses a
different method. In ‫ג‬:‫ הלכות חמץ ומצה ז‬he writes ‫"וחוטפין מצה‬
"‫ זה מיד זה‬- that the ‫ מצה‬should be snatched by one person from
another’s hand. This is the source of the common custom to
snatch or hide the afikomin.
The ‫ רשב"ם‬quotes an alternate text that reads ‫ מצות‬in place of ‫מצה‬. This
would require the removal of the ‫ מרור‬and ‫ שני תבשילין‬in addition to the ‫מצה‬.
1
~ 52 ~
Unlike Rashi and the Rambam who view the snatching as
a way to keep the child involved, the Rashbam explains that '‫ר‬
‫’אליעזר‬s advice to the parents is that they should snatch away a
portion of food that the child will eat for dinner. This will
prevent the child from over-eating and falling asleep at the seder.
Rashi offers another interpretation of ‫’ר' אליעזר‬s
statement which seems to go against the “how late was your
seder” question that we often hear. He writes that ‫ חוטפין‬means
“‫ ”אוכלין מהר‬that one should move at a quick pace through the
seder, so that the children should not become bored and fall
asleep. By moving steadily through the seder and not getting
bogged down in one section, the children will remain involved
throughout the seder.
The )‫ משנה ברורה (שער ציון ס' תעב ס"ק ב‬suggests two
interpretations for how to understand the requirement of Rashi
to eat quickly. The first method is that since the child knows that
the meal will be served in a relatively short amount of time he will
not be afraid to ask questions and hear the responses. Moving
briskly is not for the purpose of shortening the ‫ מגיד‬section and
getting to the meal faster. The ‫ חפץ חיים‬writes ‫"אטו האכילה הוא‬
"‫העיקר‬, rather the steady pace of the seder enables the child to
feel comfortable asking questions at the appropriate time. The
second method takes the statement of ‫ רש"י‬literally, that one
should move quickly through the ‫ מגיד‬section in order that the
child should ask his questions at the actual meal. The ‫עיקר‬
‫ שאילות‬should occur when the child actual sees the ‫ מצה‬and ‫מרור‬
being eaten. This second understanding highlights the fact that
the ‫ מצוה‬of ‫ סיפור יציאת מצרים‬should occur even after the ‫מגיד‬
section of the Haggadah.
~ 53 ~
When I was learning this ‫ גמרא‬with my students at the
Frisch Yeshiva High School, they were ‫ מכוון‬to the question of
the ‫כלבו ס' נא‬. He inquires into Rashi’s second answer pointing
out that the requirement that one should move quickly through
the seder appears to contradict the story we are told in the
Haggadah about the seder that was held in ‫בני ברק‬. The
Haggadah records that ‫ ר' עקיבא‬hosted his teachers and
contemporaries and that they discussed ‫ יציאת מצרים‬the entire
night. How were they able to do this, if according to Rashi, one is
supposed to proceed quickly through the seder?
The students suggested that perhaps there were no
children at this seder. Hence there would have been no obligation
to move quickly through the seder.2
The students further suggested the answer that the ‫כלבו‬
himself provides. The discussion of the Rabbanim took place
after the meal had already taken place. Just as the ‫משנה ברורה‬
suggested that the ‫ עיקר מצוה‬of ‫ סיפור יציאת מצרים‬takes place at
the meal and not during ‫מגיד‬, this story shows that the ‫ מצוה‬of
‫ סיפור יציאת מצרים‬continues even after the meal has already
concluded, in keeping with the words of the ‫רמב"ם הלכות חמץ‬
‫ד‬:‫ ומצה ז‬that writes, ‫"כל המוסיף ומאריך בדרש פרשה זו הרי זה‬
‫ ”משובח‬that the more one talks about the Exodus the more
praiseworthy it is. This applies not only at the seder but even
after the seder is complete. Perhaps the Rabbis did go through the
seder quickly, as Rashi suggests, but afterwards when the meal
The lack of children present might be supported by those who suggest that
this seder was held in isolation as a result of the Roman persecutions. This
might be why they were unaware that the time of for the morning shema had
arrived.
2
~ 54 ~
and seder was completed they continued to discuss ‫יציאת מצרים‬
until the morning.
Based upon the question of :‫מהר"ץ חיות סנהדרין לב‬,
perhaps we could suggest a third possibility as to why the story of
the seder in ‫ בני ברק‬is not a question on Rashi. The ‫ גמרא‬in ‫סוכה‬
:‫ כז‬recounts that ‫ ר' אליעזר‬chastised ‫ ר' אלעאי‬for visiting him in
the city of ‫ לוד‬and leaving ‫’ר' אלעאי‬s family on ‫יום טוב‬. This is
because ‫ ר' אליעזר‬is of the opinion that in order to fulfill the
mitzvah of ‫ שמחת יום טוב‬one has to be present with his family on
‫יום טוב‬. The ‫ מהר"ץ חיות‬asks how could ‫ ר' אליעזר‬have gone to
the seder of ‫ ר' עקיבא‬in ‫ בבני ברק‬if he is required to be home with
his family in ‫ לוד‬to fulfill the ‫ מצוה‬of ‫ ?ושמחת אתה וביתך‬Perhaps,
then, this story did not actually occur on ‫פסח‬, and it would
therefore also not pose a problem for Rashi that explained one
should rush through the seder.
The recently released ‫ ערוך השלחן‬Haggadah, by ‫ר' יחיאל‬
‫מיכל עפשטיין‬, asks the same question as the ‫מהר"ץ חיות‬. He
answers that in fact the story did occur on ‫פסח‬. He explains we
can understand the Rabbinic seder in light of another meeting
between the same group of Rabbis that is recorded in the gemara
:‫מכות כד‬. The Gemara recounts that almost all the Rabbis started
crying upon seeing a fox emerge from the area in which the ‫קדש‬
‫ קדשים‬was located. The lone exception was Rabbi Akiva, who
reacted in the exact opposite way: he laughed. Rabbi Akiva
explained that he saw in this tragedy proof that just as the
negative prophecy of Uriah had been fulfilled, so too the positive
prophecy of ‫ זכריה‬will be fulfilled, and the ‫ בית המקדש‬will
eventually be rebuilt. Even in tragedy, ‫ ר' עקיבא‬saw '‫’ה‬s hand
paving the way for future redemption. The ability of ‫ ר' עקיבא‬to
focus on the ‫גאולה‬, and see the future redemption of ‫כלל ישראל‬
~ 55 ~
was a comfort to the other Rabbanim present, one of whom was
‫ר' אליעזר‬. The ‫ ערוך השלחן‬explains that although ‫ ר' אליעזר‬was
the Rebbi of ‫ר' עקיבא‬, that ‫ פסח‬he travelled to ‫ בני ברק‬with the
other Rabbanim to discuss ‫ יציאת מצרים‬and learn from ‫’ר' עקיבא‬s
ability to see the ‫ גאולה‬and '‫’ה‬s hand in any tragic event. The need
to highlight the redemption on this ‫פסח‬, which was soon after the
‫חורבן בית המקדש‬, overrode ‫ ר' אליעזר‬concern with being with his
family on ‫יום טוב‬.3
Rabbi Yosef Binyamin Simonwitz, ‫מחבר ספר ימין יוסף‬,
explains in a way similar to the answer of ‫ ערוך השלחן‬that
normally ‫ ר' אליעזר‬remained in ‫ לוד‬on ‫ יום טוב‬to fulfill the ‫מצוה‬
of ‫שמחת יום טוב‬. However, this is not the case for ‫פסח‬. He
explains that "‫ "וכל המרבה לספר‬is in the ‫הפעיל‬, the causative.
This teaches us that the ideal way to fulfill the ‫ מצוה‬of ‫סיפור‬
‫ יציאת מצרים‬is to cause others to come together and with a
multitude of people, discuss the events of the night (similar to
‫כח ד"ה משפחה ומשפחה‬:‫ רש"י מגילת אסתר ט‬that explains that the
ideal manner of celebrating the Purim meal is to gather family
members and friends together to publicize the miracle). This is
the reason ‫ ר' אליעזר‬travelled to ‫ בני ברק‬where he could
participate in the seder with the leading Rabbanim of his time.
Rabbi Simonwitz concludes that this could be the meaning of ‫הרי‬
‫זה משובח‬, that normally ‫ ר' אליעזר‬is “‫ ”משבח את העצלנים‬praises
Rabbi Sacks in his ‫ הגדה חזון לימים‬highlights that another anomaly can be
explained based on the fact that they were in the city of ‫ר' עקיבא‬. He explains
that even thought ‫ ר' אלעזר בן עזריה‬is normally of the opinion that the ‫קרבן‬
‫ פסח \ אפיקמן‬and consequently the ‫ מצוה‬of ‫ סיפור יציאת מצרים‬can only be
performed until ‫חצות‬, he was able to discuss ‫ יציאת מצרים‬the entire night since
it was the city of ‫ ר' עקיבא‬who holds that the ‫ מצוה‬of ‫ קרבן פסח‬and
consequently the ‫ מצוה‬of ‫ סיפור יציאת מצרים‬is all night.
3
~ 56 ~
those who stay home on ‫יום טוב‬, however, when it comes to this
holiday, ‫פסח‬, he praises those who gather in large groups to
discuss ‫יציאת מצרים‬.
The :‫ מרגליות הים סנהדרין לב‬offers a novel interpretation
to explain how ‫ ר' אליעזר‬was in ‫ בני ברק‬on ‫פסח‬. He explains
based on the Mishna in ‫ה‬:‫מעשר שני ט‬. The Mishna recounts that
‫ ר' גמליאל‬was traveling with the same group of Rabbis on a boat
and was distributing the various tithes that he was required to. '‫ר‬
‫ גמליאל‬gave the ‫ מעשר ראשון‬to ‫ ר' יהושע‬who has a ‫לוי‬, and the
‫ מעשר עני‬to ‫ ר' עקיבא‬who was in charge of the charity for the
poor. Similarly, ‫ ר' יהושע‬gave the ‫ תרומת מעשר‬to ‫ר' אלעזר בן‬
‫ עזריה‬who was a ‫כהן‬. The ‫ מרגליות הים‬posits that this story took
place on ‫ערב פסח‬. This is because the ‫ זמן ביעור‬for ‫ מעשר‬is ‫פסח‬
and ‫ ר' גמליאל‬had to remove the tithes from his possession. He
then explains that the boat must have landed in ‫ יפו‬on ‫ערב פסח‬
and the only town they could reach before ‫ יום טוב‬was ‫בני ברק‬.
This would explain why ‫ ר' אליעזר‬was not in his hometown.4
The ‫ אברבנל‬in his commentary on the Haggadah, ‫זבח‬
‫פסח‬, preempts the question of the ‫מהר"ץ חיות‬. He explains that
the story of the seder took place in ‫לוד‬, the hometown of '‫ר‬
‫אליעזר‬, and not in ‫בני ברק‬. The ‫ אברבנל‬explains that ‫ בני ברק‬does
not refer to a physical location, but rather it means items of
significant worth. The Haggadah is telling us what the Rabbis sat
upon rather than the location that they ate. Utilizing the ‫’אברבנל‬s
If the ‫’מרגליות הים‬s interpretation is correct, then why is ‫ ר' גמליאל‬not
mentioned as being present at the ‫ סדר‬with the other Rabbanim if he was with
them on the boat? He answers that ‫ ר' גמליאל‬was the ‫ נשיא‬and if he was
present at the seder, the other Rabbanim would not have been able to recline.
Consequently, ‫ ר' גמליאל‬had his own seder.
4
~ 57 ~
approach we can link the story found in the Haggadah with the
version found in the ‫ תוספתא‬which states clearly that the episode
took place in the city of ‫לוד‬.
‫מעשה ברבן גמליאל וזקנים שהיו מסובין בבית ביתוס בן זונין‬
)‫יב‬:‫בלוד והיו עסוקין בהלכות פסח כל הלילה עד קרות הגבר (פסחים י‬
In contrast to the previous answers that explain that the
story took place on ‫פסח‬, the ‫ שפת אמת פסח תר"מ‬concurs with the
question of the ‫מהר"ץ חיות‬, and explains that the story did not
take place on ‫פסח‬. The ‫ שפת אמת‬suggests that ‫ הרי זה משובח‬does
not mean that one is praiseworthy for telling the story, but rather
one is improved through the act of telling ‫יציאת מצרים‬. ‫יציאת‬
‫ מצרים‬is to become a transformative experience for the individual
and is to remain with him throughout the year. The story
recounted in the Haggadah displays how these Rabbanim were
able to continue the message of ‫ פסח‬on a regular day in the year.
The ‫ו‬:‫ רמב"ם הלכות חמץ ומצה ז‬writes:
‫ חייב אדם להראות את עצמו כאילו הוא בעצמו‬,‫בכל דור ודור‬
‫ שנאמר "ואותנו הוציא משם" ועל דבר זה‬, ‫יצא עתה משיעבוד מצריים‬
‫ציווה הקב"ה בתורה "וזכרת כי עבד היית" כלומר כאילו אתה בעצמך‬
‫ ויצאת לחירות ונפדית‬,‫היית עבד‬
The ‫ רמב"ם‬does not quote the ‫ פסוק‬of ‫והגדת לבנך‬- ‫(שמות‬
‫ח‬:‫ )יג‬as his source, rather he quotes the ‫ פסוק‬of ‫וזכרת כי עבד היית‬
that is found in ‫ ספר דברים‬several times. These ‫ פסוקים‬are written
in the context of other ‫מצות‬, such as ‫ עבד עברי‬and helping the ‫גר‬
‫ ואלמנה‬,‫יתום‬. I heard in the name of Rabbi Aharon Kahn, Rosh
Yeshiva at Yeshiva University, who explained that the Rambam is
highlighting that ‫ יציאת מצרים‬is to effect the way an individual
performs ‫מצות‬. We provide presents to the ‫עבד עברי‬, or help
those in need, because we remember what it was like in ‫מצרים‬. It
~ 58 ~
is not enough to only mention what occurred in ‫מצרים‬, but that
experience has to transform who we are, the way we act, and how
we perform ‫מצות‬, in a similar manner to the ‫ שפת אמת‬who
understood ‫ הרי זה משובח‬as being a transformative experience.
On ‫ פסח‬night we go out of our way to involve the
children and highlight the uniqueness of the night. The message
of ‫ יציאת מצרים‬should begin in the ‫ מגיד‬section of the Haggadah,
continue with the ‫מוציא מצה‬, be expanded upon during the meal,
spill over to the last of the ‫ד' כוסות‬, carry on even after the seder,
and impact our entire year thereby changing who we are and
deepening our connection to the ‫רבונו של עולם‬, and our
understanding that we are always benefitting from and required to
remind ourselves of ‫יציאת מצרים‬.
~ 59 ~