Transcript

Let's look at the Mishna in Kuf Tes Zayin in Pesachim. קט"ז עמוד ב, eight, nine lines down.

בכל דור ודור חייב אדם לראות את עצמו כאילו הוא יצא ממצרים שנאמר והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא לאמר בעבור זה עשה ה' לי בצאתי ממצרים.

The Gemara, the first line, אמר רבא צריך שיאמר ואותנו הוציא משם. So what exactly is this Chiyuv of כאילו הוא יצא ממצרים? So Keyadu'a that the Rambam both in the Halachos in Perek Zayin as well as if you look in the Frankel, not in the Defusim, in the Haggadah as well, so the Rambam writes here, reading Zayin Vav in Chametz U'Matzah,

בכל דור ודור חייב אדם להראות את עצמו כאילו הוא בעצמו יצא עתה משעבוד מצרים שנאמר ואותנו הוציא משם וגומר. ועל דבר זה צוה הקדוש ברוך הוא בתורה וזכרת כי עבד היית כלומר כאילו אתה בעצמך היית עבד ויצאת לחירות ונפדית.

So generally it's assumed that the Rambam had a different Girsa in the Mishna that he has the extra Hei. Rav Kappach has an interesting suggestion. Rav Kappach says that you find in Lashon HaKodesh that sometimes when you have the Hif'il infinitive so the Hei drops out and Lehavdil the same way in English you have contractions, right? I can't, I don't. So Lehavdil so in Lashon HaKodesh you have לצבות בטן ולנפיל ירך in Sotah. So really it's not really but without the contraction it would be Lehatzbos, right? But that's the effect that the Mayim HaMarim will cause the collapse, so that's Lehanpil. It's not and yet the Hei, the Hei drops out. Lanchosam HaDerech instead of Lehanchosam. So it's but that's you have that in Chumash that the Hei will drop out. So Rav Kappach conjectures that maybe the Rambam has the same Girsa we do but the Rambam vocalized Leharos. It's not that he had the Girsa Leharos, but that he vocalized Laros. He has the same Lamed Reish that we have but instead of the Chirik he sees it with a Patach. So a student of my father's told me, I don't remember if I'm getting this detail correctly, I think there's a Haggadah, I think it's from the 14th century, which is vocalized, which has Nekudos, and it says Laros in fact, it says exactly like Rav Kappach's conjecture. Okay so it could be that the Rambam didn't have a different Girsa but just a different Pshat in the Girsa than what we generally assume is the Pshat in the Girsa. Okay so let's initially talk about the Rambam. The Rambam continues then in Zayin Zayin and says

לפיכך כשסועד אדם בלילה הזה צריך לאכול ולשתות והוא מיסב דרך חירות וכל אחד ואחד בין אנשים בין נשים חייב לשתות בלילה הזה ארבעה כוסות של יין.

So the Rambam says again the Chiyuv is Leharos es Atzmo. Leharos does not... And leharos translates not to show oneself, but rather to, not in the sense of showing to oneself, but to exhibit oneself, to present oneself. leharos es atzmo, to make oneself seen in the sense of this is how the person should be acting, this is how he should be presenting himself. חייב אדם להראות את עצמו, the person should be presenting himself כאילו הוא יצא ממצרים. And the Rambam says that two chiyuvim stem from that. One is the chiyuv haseibah and the other is the chiyuv of daled kosos. That both of those, which are derech cheirus, are the way we fulfill the leharos es atzmo. Possibly, again, that's just what it says in the words here. Possibly, again, so the Rambam clearly says that the din of leharos es atzmo is the yesod of the din is a din d'oraissa, shenemar. The fact that it translates through haseibah and daled kosos, that's Chazal kavei obviously. There's no indication in the Torah for that, but the yesod hadin, שנאמר ואותנו הוציא משם. The yesod hadin is a din d'oraissa. That needs to be refined. I mean let me come... maybe, maybe lav davka. Maybe based on that, if you go back to the Gemara on Kuf Ches for a moment, קוף חית עמוד א, if you see where the beis is to the Ein Mishpat on קוף חית עמוד א rabosai איתמר מצה צריכה הסיבה. So,

איתמר מצה צריכה הסיבה מרור אין צריך הסיבה, יין איתמר משמיה דרב נחמן צריך הסיבה ואיתמר משמיה דרב נחמן אין צריך הסיבה ולא פליגי הא בתרתי כסי קמאי הא בתרתי כסי בתראי.

So Rav Nachman said that two of the kosos need haseibah and two of them don't.

אמרי לה להאי גיסא ואמרי לה להאי גיסא. אמרי לה להאי גיסא,

some say that what Rav Nachman said, what he intended is that

תרי כסי קמאי בעו הסיבה דהשתא הוא דקמתחלא לה חירות

but

תרי כסי בתראי לא בעו הסיבה מאי דהוה הוה. ואמרי לה להאי גיסא,

ipcha,

תרי כסי בתראי בעו הסיבה ההיא שעתא דקא הויא חירות, תרי כסי קמאי לא בעו הסיבה דאכתי עבדים היינו קאמר. השתא דאיתמר הכי ואיתמר הכי אידי ואידי בעו הסיבה.

So the Gemara says since we don't know what Rav Nachman had in mind, that's why we do haseibah for all four kosos. So the Ran famously asks, why not safek d'rabanan l'kula? If we don't know, so why are we being machmir?

ואף גב דבעלמא קיימא לן, אף גב דבעלמא קיימא לן איפכא דכל ספק דרבנן לקולא הכא נקטינן דלאו מילתא דטירחא היא עבדינן לחומרא דמילתא כדפירשו ז"ל.

So some Rishonim say the klal of safek d'rabanan l'kula doesn't apply if there's no tircha involved in being machmir. The Gemara in Brachos has an ibaya d'lo ifshata, if you're holding a cup of beer, so the bracha's shehakol, but you mistakenly think you're holding wine. So you begin to make a borei peri hagafen and then you reroute and ultimately say the shehakol, so are you yotzei the bracha. So that remains in an ibaya d'lo ifshata. So Tosfos dibbur hamaskil lo says

ופירש אלפס השתא דלא אפשטא בעיין אזלינן לקולא ואפילו פתח בחמרא וסיים בשיכרא יצא והר"י היה אומר לחומרא דצריך לברך פעם אחרת.

So the Ri says that for some reason we go lechumra here. He doesn't tell you why. So there are different suggestions as to why the Ri goes lechumra, k'dimni that one of them is the same as what the Ran is quoting here. That if it's not a tircha, that the klal of safek d'rabbanan lekula doesn't apply. There are other pshatim in the Ri. ולי נראה says the Ran

דעל כרחך רבנן עבדו תקנתא בכולהו דאי ניזיל לקולא אמאי נקט בהני תרי מהני ואי נקט בתרוייהו הופקע מצות הסיבה לגמרי.

The Ri said the din of safek d'rabbanan lekula means if it happens in an isolated case. But if the effect of saying safek d'rabbanan lekula is that you'll be oker the din, so then there's no klal safek d'rabbanan lekula. Only here, if you'll say safek d'rabbanan lekula and therefore not be meyaseiv by arba kosos, but there's a chiyuv to be meyaseiv by arba kosos. So the din would be ne'ekar. So why not say we'll be meyaseiv on the first two? Choose? No, you can't arbitrarily be machria on the safek, you can't arbitrarily choose the first two or the last two, so mimaila it ends up that you have to be meyaseiv for all four. Okay. But itachen that according to the Rambam that there would be an additional answer to this question, which is, agam again, that the that the chiyuv of haseiba is a chiyuv d'rabbanan, but it comes to be mekayeim a din d'oraisa. It's not a din d'rabbanan the chiyuv of Ner Chanukah. Ner Chanukah is totally d'rabbanan, totally d'rabbanan. V'osanu hotzi misham is a din d'oraisa, she'ne'emar v'osanu hotzi misham is a din d'oraisa. So Chazal were koveia haseiba and arba kosos as a way of being mekayeim v'osanu hotzi misham, so since there's a yesod d'oraisa here, so maybe that's why Chazal didn't apply the klal of safek d'rabbanan lekula. Ain aleph. Why would it be different than avelus, which we also say is a yesod d'oraisa and we see all the time safek d'rabbanan lekula? I mean because we're saying הלכה כדברי המיקל באבל? No, there's a discussion whether... But whatever the answer to your question is, again, ayen sham, do you say according to the shittos that that aveilus yom rishon is d'oraisa, do you say halacha d'vei hakail in your misham? So, ayen b'zeh. But whatever the answer to your question is, the case of aveilus isn't parallel. There I think we assume that the yud alef davar are no one says, the Rambam doesn't say that haseiba is a chiyuv d'oraisa. V'osono hotzei misham is a din d'oraisa and Chazal were koveia haseiba as a way of expressing that, as a way of exhibiting oneself to be fulfilling that. But aveilus is more than that. Aveilus, it's not that min HaTorah it's left open how a person would express aveilus yom rishon. No, the yud alef davar themselves are d'oraisa according to the Rambam and all those who hold that aveilus yom rishon is d'oraisa. So, the case is if anything aveilus is more chamur and there even if what we said wasn't true it wouldn't explain aveilus. So paradoxically that means that aveilus isn't the kasha on me. The simple pshat is that halacha d'vei hakail doesn't apply in yom rishon if you hold that yom rishon is d'oraisa. But it would apply to the other days where you cited the Gra for... oh that's what you're thinking about? Oh, the רמבם אינו משלח כבנותיו? That's what you meant? Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. So then the if you're asking about that so then the answer is the same type of answer but in the other direction. So then what's the kal v'chomer halacha d'vei hakail, why not just say it's safek d'rabbanan? Safek d'rabbanan. Again so dal me'hacha what we said. Leave that aside. So clearly halacha d'vei hakail goes beyond what you would have said based on safek d'rabbanan. So al korchecha there's something miyuchad in terms of dinei aveilus. So again I don't think it's going to be a kasha on what we said. Okay so maybe. Now okay so according to the Rambam there is again more so than than is the case with every d'rabbanan as we've discussed, the Rambam in the paragraph in the Minyan HaMitzvos more so than for every d'rabbanan there is a kiyum d'oraisa in haseiba and in dalet kosos because ultimately that's a response to the Torah's v'osono hotzei misham. Okay. But the emes is that the apparent gap between the Rambam's l'haros es atzmo... or laros es atzmo same thing and and the liros es atzmo is is really really that gap is closed I think as follows. Let's re-read Zayin Vav here.

בכל דור ודור חייב אדם להראות את עצמו כאילו הוא בעצמו יצא עתה משעבוד מצרים שנאמר ואותנו הוציא משם.

So where does that pasuk say leharos es atzmo? No that pasuk if anything would seem to be a prooftext for liros es atzmo no? Ve-osanu hotzi misham means that when you speak about Yetzias Mitzrayim so a person describes himself as the as the beneficiary of Yetzias Mitzrayim. But where do you see that so that's a mindset right? That's a where do you see that there's a chiyuv for it to translate into action? Take a look at the Rashbam here on the Gimara in ק"טז ע"ב that we just looked at over so אמר רבא צריך שיאמר ואותנו הוציא משם. You have it the רשב"ם ד"ה צריך שיאמר. Do you see it on the side?

צריך שיאמר פסוק זה ואותנו הוציא משם שצריך להראות את עצמו כאילו יצא כאילו יצא משם שאף אותנו גאל הקדוש ברוך הוא.

What does the Rashbam say in this arichus no? Let's read it again.

צריך שיאמר פסוק זה ואותנו הוציא משם שצריך להראות את עצמו כאילו יצא משם שאף אותנו גאל הקדוש ברוך הוא.

So kimduma that the Rashbam is answering effectively our question in the Rambam. Ein hachi nami ve-osanu hotzi misham doesn't doesn't establish the chiyuv of leharos because ve-osanu hotzi misham is is perspective it's mindset and that's what the Rashbam is is saying no there's a link here heyos that the Torah commands that mindset that's the basis for the chiyuv of leharos es atzmo. So leharos es atzmo is a chiyuv d'rabbanan and again so does that make the previous pshat in the Rambam by haseiva a little bit more tenuous? Maybe but it was tenuous to begin with.

צריך שיאמר פסוק זה ואותנו הוציא משם משום שצריך להראות את עצמו כאילו יצא משם שאף אותנו גאל הקדוש ברוך הוא.

So the Torah's din is takeh a din of liros es atzmo even according to the Rambam. The din Torah is liros es atzmo. Chazal say that to to ensure that so we need to objectify it and therefore let it be leharos es atzmo. And I think that's what the Rashbam means שאף אותנו גאל הקדוש ברוך הוא that's what the pasuk says. The pasuk says ve-osanu hotzi misham שאף אותנו גאל הקדוש ברוך הוא and but the pasuk doesn't doesn't translate that into action and the Rambam itself is also like that because the Rambam then adds ve-al davar. And maybe you should say it again differently and that if a person really sees that, if a person really has that mindset, then al korcho it will spill over and that's why chazal were koveia that let it express itself as haseiba and through daled kosos. But what's mefurash baTorah is liros et atzmo even according to the Rambam. That's what's mefurash baTorah. That when you respond to the son, you say osano hotzi misham not et avoseinu. So again the contrast between the gap between whether it's liros or leharos it shrinks. It shrinks because the basis for leharos is liros. And that's lechora clear from both the Rambam and the Rashbam. What does the liros mean? So again now this question is ledivrei hakol not only according to our reading of the mishna but according to the Rambam as well. What does liros et atzmo mean? So the peshat is what it means is as follows: It doesn't mean that when a person sits down at the Seder, you know he has to have psychosomatically his back should be hurting him from the avoda kasha in Mitzrayim and lifting all the boulders. What it means is the way we say in Avadim Hayinu that

אילו לא הוציא הקדוש ברוך הוא את אבותינו ממצרים הרי אנו ובנינו ובני בנינו משועבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים.

That כאילו הוא יצא ממצרים means that a person is supposed to not take cheirus for granted. A person should view himself as the beneficiary of yetzias Mitzrayim. That's what it means. It means that agam that we have never chasdei Hashem never experienced avdus and therefore we would take cheirus for granted. No. So

בכל דור ודור חייב אדם לראות את עצמו כאילו הוא יצא ממצרים אותנו הוציא משם אשר גאלנו וגאל את אבותינו.

Again who experienced avdus? avoseinu experienced avdus. But the geulah was a geulah for us as well and we're beneficiaries and in that sense חייב אדם לראות את עצמו, a person should appreciate cheirus the way someone who was an eved appreciates cheirus. And if anything we should appreciate it more. The person who was in that door so he first had to suffer through the avdus before the blessing of cheirus. And we had the blessing of cheirus without having to have endured the avodas perech. So that's the peshat again and it's not that what we say in Avadim Hayinu and bechol dor vador are two different perspectives. No, that's the

בכל דור ודור חייב אדם לראות את עצמו כאילו הוא יצא עתה משעבוד מצרים.

The same way the eved sheyatza meshia'bud Mitzrayim recognizes that his cheirus is a gift and that he's a beneficiary of yetzias Mitzrayim, so we're supposed to have that same understanding as well. And in that sense it's not a ke'ilu, it's not with an imagining. No, that's actually true. It's actually true that our cheirus is a result of yetzias Mitzrayim, that we are beneficiaries of yetzias Mitzrayim. And that's what the theme of again the mindset of osano hotzi misham is and that's what's celebrated and exhibited by presenting ourselves as those who are celebrating cheirus. You celebrate a gift, you don't celebrate what's taken for granted. So we celebrate the geulah. And and and that should constantly be our awareness. It's never one that we're supposed to take for granted, it's not a given. No, it's it's a gift because of of Yetzias Mitzrayim and it remains that, it always remains that that gift. That's what the chiyuv of bechol dor vador is, lefi pshuto. What what does the Rambam add with וזכרת כי עבד היית in Halacha Vav? Come back to Halacha Vav for a moment.

בכל דור ודור חייב אדם להראות את עצמו כאילו הוא בעצמו יצא עתה משעבוד מצרים שנאמר ואותנו הוציא משם וגו' ועל דבר זה צוה הקדוש ברוך הוא בתורה וזכרת כי עבד היית כלומר כאילו אתה בעצמך היית עבד ויצאת לחירות ונפדית.

So what is this what does וזכרת כי עבד היית say that veosanu hotzi misham doesn't say? May maybe you have on the the pasuk veosanu hotzi misham the the context there in Chumash Devarim? You have it? What what's the previous pasuk? Just the pasuk before? Yeah, what is the pasuk before? ויום השביעי שבת לה'. Oh, that's וזכרת כי עבד היית but veosanu hotzi misham, right? I think I think you're doing וזכרת כי עבד היית but veosanu hotzi misham? V'yitein Hashem osos before that, before that. V'amar before veosanu hotzi misham? Yeah, veki yishalcha.

וכי ישאלך בנך מחר לאמר מה העדות והחוקים והמשפטים אשר צוה ה' אלקינו אתכם.

Meaning it's in the parsha of the ben chacham, right? It's in the parsha of sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim. So the pasuk veosanu hotzi misham is is in the the parsha of sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim. So what what is the Rambam enhancing by quoting the pasuk from the the other pasuk from Aseres Hadibros in Va'eschanan, right? Where the Torah gives as the reason for Shabbos zecher l'Yetzias Mitzrayim. So what does the Rambam gain by quoting it? Just saying you see this as a emphasis that you have elsewhere in the Torah as well? No, may maybe the Rambam means is like this. Again, so we said before that veosanu hotzi misham lichora only refers to a mindset, right? It only refers to a mindset. Says the Rambam, but elsewhere when the Torah has the same din, so there the Torah does say that it should translate. Because elsewhere where the Torah has this yesod of ki eved hayisa, so that's the basis for a hanhaga. It's a basis for shmiras Shabbos. So the Rambam is saying, you're asking again that there's a gap between what I'm saying חייב אדם להראות את עצמו and the pasuk of ve'osonu hotzi mishom? Because ve'osonu hotzi mishom is a mindset and חייב אדם להראות את עצמו refers to action, how one presents oneself, how one conducts oneself. No, so על דא וזה ציווה הקדוש ברוך הוא, you see from from the paradigm of Shabbos that when the Torah has a mitzvah of this mindset, the Torah wants it to translate. So therefore, הוא הדין הוא הטעם that here too the Torah wants it to translate and l'fichach Chazal were kovaya that that we should have, again, unlike Shabbos where where the Torah itself was kovaya how the וזכרת כי עבד היית and vayotzi'acha, where the Torah itself was kovaya here. But but that's what what Chazal are are responding to because you see in the Torah gufa that the mindset is supposed to translate. So mimaila Chazal here were kovaya haseiba and arba kosos. You know, based on on what we've been discussing, so I don't know if this is al derech pshat or al derech hachiddush but maybe the girsa in the mishna takka is, again, as we have it printed, lamed reish aleph vav sof and the muchuvan takka is both. Not not to say only like Rav Kapach's, you know, very creative suggestion that that it's the way of writing l'haros. No, maybe it's the way of writing both because the emmes is, again, it's liros and l'haros. That what the Torah says specifically, directly is בעבור זה עשה ה' לי or ve'osonu hotzi mishom, which is liros. But again, with the looking at the looking to the paradigm of Shabbos where when it's liros, the Torah then translates it into action. So so the mishna is written in such a way that that it can be, that it that it can be vocalized and should be vocalized both as liros and and l'haros, because both dinim are compressed. In either way that is the pshat. Maybe it's even the pshat in the word of the mishna. You know, the Grah has a ווארט על דרך המוסר which connects well here. The gemara in Brachos juxtaposes the two psukim that there's a pasuk, where is it in Mishlei? מצא אשה מצא טוב, but then there's another pasuk in Koheles, oh מוצא אני מר ממות את האשה. So the gemara juxtaposes the That the b'maarava in Eretz Yisrael, when a person would finish Sheva Brachos, they would ask him motzo or motzei? But the Gaon says that there's another contrast, besides the tov versus mar mimaves, the other contrast is that one is in the past tense, one's in the present tense. So what's the pshat in that? So the Gaon, the Gaon says, he gives a very important insight into human nature. How do you reconcile the two pesukim? So obviously it depends upon what type of woman a person marries. If he marries, if he marries the right woman, then it's motza tov. Otherwise it can be מוצא אני מר ממות את האשה. So says the Gaon, says like this. When a person has blessing in his life, so when the blessing first comes into one's life, so then we appreciate it. We're excited, we appreciate it. And then we take it for granted. So the past tense. When a person has a source of adversity in his life, it's not that we initially bemoan it and then afterwards we adjust and no, it's an ongoing, it's an ongoing grievance we have. It's, it's בכל יום בעיניך כחדשים. When a person has an experience of mar mimaves it never recedes into the past. The person never takes it for granted. It never, never normalized. It's always in the present. Motzei, motzei, motzei. Every morning he wakes up with that same feeling. No, by the tov, no it's motza. So he was excited when he got engaged, he was excited by the wedding, he was excited by Sheva Brachos. And then after that takes, takes, takes it for granted. The Gaon's not describing what's supposed to be, he's describing what is, not what's supposed to be. And that's what the mitzvah of Sippur says, no, it's not supposed to be that way. It's not supposed to be that way. בכל דור ודור חייב אדם לראות את עצמו. No, that we're supposed to recognize that this is a gift and not take it for granted. And that's what it means, לראות את עצמו כאילו הוא יצא ממצרים, not that it was ever my problem. Adaraba, that, that magnifies the gift. That magnifies the gift. Okay, we'll stop here.