Following Klotz kasha, following Klotz kasha, but ולא נודע מה צריך. Everyone knows there’s no Birchas HaMitzvah on Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim, right? There’s no Birchas HaMitzvah before we begin Maggid, before we begin the Haggadah. Why not? Okay, so there’s pick and choose. Whatever. Big, big selection of reasons available here. It’s not defined. The Yesod that when the mitzvah itself contains a bracha, so then there’s no Birchas HaMitzvah. So therefore, since the Haggadah contains Asher Ge’alanu, so there’s no Birchas HaMitzvah. Mitzvos sichlios, whatever. Take your favorite reason. Take your favorite reason. So why does everyone... why’s everyone getting all excited over the question of whether of... of why the Hallel the night of Pesach should be inferior to Hallel on any other occasion? Pshat is very poshet. Hallel on every other occasion when you say Hallel is said as a mitzvah bifnei atzmo. It’s said as a mitzvah bifnei atzmo, so there’s no rhyme or reason that it shouldn’t have a Birchas HaMitzvah. Hallel the night of the Seder is said as part of Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim. Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim, for whatever reason, does not have a bracha. So meichei tisei that the Hallel should be a bracha? The Hallel is simply a part of Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim. So meichei tisei, meichei tisei that the Hallel should need a Birchas HaMitzvah? Hallel needs it let’s say according to the Rav’s pshat, so the Rishonim should have said as follows. The Rishonim should have said Hallel doesn’t have a bracha the night of Pesach. Why doesn’t it have a bracha the night of Pesach? מהי שנה משאר ימות השנה? Because שאר ימות השנה the mitzvah of Hallel is alone. It’s separate. It’s not part of a larger unit and it’s not part of a ma’aseh ha-mitzvah which has a bracha in it. On the night of the Seder, so the Hallel is a part in מצות סיפור יציאת מצרים because there’s a chiyuv d'Oraisa of Hallel. There’s a chiyuv d'Oraisa of Hallel and the Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim doesn’t have a bracha because of the bracha Asher Ge’alanu. So how come the Rishonim don’t say that? The Rishonim ask why Hallel doesn’t have a bracha or why the whole Maggid doesn’t? No, they’re discussing specifically... they’re discussing specifically here why Hallel doesn’t have a bracha. According to some Rishonim it does have a bracha. Not just why it doesn’t. According to some Rishonim, they’re discussing whether it has a bracha, not just why it doesn’t. According to some Rishonim Halacha le-ma'aseh it has a bracha. According to some Rishonim Halacha le-ma'aseh it has a bracha. Oh, so then the shayla is... the shayla is l'chora everyone’s... isn’t everyone missing the point here? Why shouldn’t we just say that the Hallel is a part of Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim? Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim doesn’t have a bracha, isn’t supposed to have a bracha, so meichei tisei that this prat, that this detail of Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim should all of a sudden warrant a bracha? That all of a sudden that should warrant a bracha? And again, so some Rishonim Halacha le-ma'aseh have a bracha, and even the Rishonim who don’t have a bracha Halacha le-ma'aseh don’t give this explanation. They don’t... so no one likes this svara. What’s wrong with it? L'chora it’s right. L'chora the cheshbon is correct. L'chora that cheshbon is correct. So ella mai, ella mai, so l'chora you see from that, but even if you say like the Chinuch says, even if you say like Reb Chaim says that there is a chiyuv Hallel d'Oraisa as part of Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim, but there’s also a din of חיוב הלל בפני עצמו the night of Pesach independent of מצות סיפור יציאת מצרים. So if that’s true, so then you understand. So then the Rishonim are takeh all excited. Is there a bracha, and if there is a bracha so meichei tisei there shouldn’t be a bracha? But if everything we said... if the only din Hallel the night of Pesach were part of Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim, like Reb Chaim said it is also. He didn’t... we’re not saying against him. He didn’t say it’s exclusively that. If that... if that were the only din Hallel, so meichei tisei that all of a sudden we should expect it to have a bracha? No. There’s a perfect answer for why it doesn’t have a bracha. And the Rishonim don’t say it. So ella al korchacha... so l'chora, l'chora the simple pshat is that you see from that that the Hallel is also... it’s מדין סיפור יציאת מצרים, but it’s also a חיוב הלל בפני עצמו. It’s also a חיוב הלל בפני עצמו that there’s a chiyuv Hallel the night of Tes-Vov even independent of מצות סיפור יציאת מצרים. Oh, so ei bazay, ei bazay, so if Hallel has an independent standing, so then regardless of what the explanation is for why Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim doesn’t have a bracha, so that doesn’t tell us anything. It doesn’t begin to... To explain why Hallel shouldn't have a brachah. So Hallel takka should have a brachah. And according to some rishonim it does. And according to other rishonim no, we read it behefsek betoras keriah and not betoras shirah and not betoras keriah. Whatever the teirutz is, but it needs, it needs an explanation. hashta de'asinu mehakhi, so then be'emes there's no hechreich in Tosafos that Tosafos disagrees with this with this yesod of the kiyan of the Chinuch of the Mishnah. That the simple pshat in the Mishnah is that Hallel the night of Pesach is d'oraisa. So then the pshat in Tosafos would be no, Tosafos says, Tosafos says אבל בהלל של אחר אפיקומן אין להחמיר כל כך שהרי מדרבנן הוא.
So why did they have to add shel achar afikoman? I mean you're not going to eat the afikoman until you say the first part of Hallel anyway. Until you say the first part of Hallel anyway. So now maybe that's gufa what Tosafos takka has in mind. Tosafos is maskim that the Hallel which we say in kos sheini, stam all this would be talui on Beis Hillel. Since according to Beis Shammai that you don't say Betzeis Yisrael until kos revii, so mistama in kos revii we're still dealing with the Hallel of sippur yetziat mitzrayim. But according to Beis Hillel that we already said Betzeis Yisrael in kos sheini, so then that's what Tosafos is saying. That the Hallel of kos sheini is takka d'oraisa. And if for some reason a person did things shelo keseder and he ate his afikoman before maggid or before saying the first two parshiyos of Hallel, so Tosafos would agree that that Hallel is d'oraisa. Tosafos says the part of Hallel which is achar afikoman, so that's the seifa of Hallel. That's the seifa of Hallel again. The raya that that exists is the whole diyun in the rishonim about the brachah. Tosafos says that seifa of Hallel is only midrabbanan. That there's no there's no mid'oraisa there's matzah, and there's marror, and the sippur yetziat mitzrayim, but there's no independent chiyuv Hallel, there's no independent chiyuv Hallel. That chiyuv Hallel must be a chiyuv drabbanan. So mimeila Tosafos says we go lekula. But lekhora Tosafos would agree, Tosafos would agree there's certainly no hechreich in Tosafos that Tosafos would disagree about the Hallel of the second kos. Very small he'arah. So in Shulchan Aruch this appears as a machlokes between the Mechaber and the Rama. The Mechaber only mentions being nizaher on afikoman lifnei chatzos and the Rama mentions being nizaher on Hallel as well, being nizaher on Hallel as well. לאחר גמר כל הסעודה, here in Taf-ayin-zayin, לאחר גמר כל הסעודה אוכלים ממצה השמורה תחת המפה כזית כל אחד זכר לפסח הנאכל על השובע ויאכלנו בהסיבה ולא יברך עליו ויהיה זהיר לאכלו קודם חצות. עד כאן דברי המחבר.
The Rama adds ויקדים עצמו שגם ההלל יקרא קודם חצות. So again this is consistent with the Tosafos as we have it in Megillah that we should be nizaher on afikoman kodem chatzos, but you don't have to be nizaher on on Hallel kodem chatzos. If anything it's even a little stronger than the lashon we have in Tosafos because Tosafos just said אין להחמיר כל כך by by Hallel, sounds like a little bit, you know, skip the zrizus kedei to finish Hallel before chatzos, but turn the world upside down so you don't have to worry. Of trying to reach the end of Kos Revii, the end of Hallel, prior to Chatzos. So l'chora the pshat in the Mechaber is like we just said in Tosafos, right? ספיקא דדינא הי פסקן, and ספיקא דרבנן לקולא אפילו לכתחילה, but Afikoman even though it's only d'rabanan זכר לפסח וכולו וכולו כמו שנתבאר. But ella mai the Biur HaGra points out later in siman Taf-Pay-Tes in Hilchos Sfirat Haomer that the Mechaber doesn't agree with that Tosafos in Menachos of ספיקא דרבנן לקולא לכתחילה. The Mechaber does not approve of counting l'chat-chila bein hashmashos. And the Gra, the Gra says that pshat in that is דלא כתוספות במנחות, דלא כתוספות במנחות. The Mechaber writes that המדקדקים אינם סופים עד צאת הכוכבים וכן ראוי לעשות, v'la'afukei says the Gra, v'la'afukei מידת התוספות במנחות סו עמוד א דיבור המתחיל זכר דמשמע כתבו כיון שהוא ספיקא דרבנן מכל מקום אינו נכון שיכניס עצמו בספק דרבנן.
So the Gra says m'forash the Mechaber doesn't hold from that, the Mechaber doesn't hold from ספיקא דרבנן לקולא אפילו לכתחילה. So l'chora so al korchacha you have to say again the simple pshat, the less than simple pshat, but the simple pshat in the Mechaber is that the Mechaber just paskens like Rabbi Akiva and the Mechaber doesn't have a sfeka d'dina, the Mechaber doesn't have a sfeka d'dina. So ella mai if there's no sfeka d'dina so why are we hurrying up with the Afikoman? Again, so we're hurrying up with the Afikoman because Afikoman is zecher l'pesach, the Afikoman is zecher l'pesach and the pesach had to be ne'echal kodem Chatzos, had to be ne'echal kodem Chatzos. Had to be ne'echal kodem Chatzos even according to Rabbi Akiva, which is what the Rosh says somewhat tentatively in Arvei Psachim that even according to Rabbi Akiva maybe halacha l'ma'aseh there's a din of Chatzos. So mistama in the Mechaber the Mechaber is not saying it b'toras sfeka d'dina. The Mechaber is lenient on Hallel not b'toras sfeka d'dina and ספיקא דרבנן לקולא לכתחילה, but rather rather because he paskens outright like Rabbi Akiva. So it's interesting that a little bit, so l'mai nafka mina how you say it, besides what the Mechaber holds in ספיקא דרבנן לקולא לכתחילה which is a big nafka mina, but l'mai nafka mina besides that. So the Noda B'Yehuda on the side of the Shulchan Aruch discusses what if for whatever reason for whatever reason a person ended up not eating matzah, even the ikkar of matzah, hasn't done anything until after Chatzos. So the Noda B'Yehuda says ונראה דמי שאירע לו אונס שלא יכול לאכול פרוסת המוציא עד חצות לא יברך על אכילת מצה דספק ברכות להקל.
So it's I don't know it's yesh l'ayein whether or not I mean mistama halacha l'ma'aseh that's what we would do but the Ois Samech-Hey discusses it, maybe it's not so pashut. But the question is would that be the psak haMechaber also. If you were going to follow the Mechaber straight and simple, straight and simple even l'gabbei safek brachos, if you're going to follow the Mechaber, so I don't know, so l'chora you can't say the Mechaber entertained a safek about it because if the Mechaber would have had a safek maybe we pasken like רבי אלעזר בן עזריה so he would have at least encouraged us to finish Hallel before Chatzos because in Hilchos Sfirat Haomer he doesn't accept ספיקא דרבנן לקולא לכתחילה, so the Mechaber is mashma that he paskens like Rabbi Akiva, paskens like Rabbi Akiva, not b'toras safek, not it's not with the cheshbon of Tosafos in Megillah. It coincides with their shita but it's not with their cheshbon, it's לאו מטעמא הי הוא. So I don't know, so if you wanted to pasken this shayla just strictly according to the Mechaber so I don't know so maybe tzaruch iyun maybe the Mechaber would have said a bracha, maybe he would have said a bracha. The Rambam paskens like Rabbi Akiva. The Rif is mashmit אמר רבא אכל מצה בזמן הזה לדעת רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אחר חצות.
The Rif is mashmit, mistama he's mashmit because he also paskens like like Rabbi Akiva. And even the Rosh who's the third of the major Rishonim from the Mechaber has a safek about it. So yitachen it's yitachen. it's entirely, it's very plausible that the Mechaber just paskins straight out like Rebbe Akiva. So I don't know, so if this shayla were to be resolved strictly according to the Mechaber, so maybe just for that reason alone one, one would, one would make a beracha. Okay, just want to, want to finish with one last heara in a totally different inyan. It's actually a very big inyan but maybe just one small heara for today. We mentioned yesterday about the famous machlokes Rav and Shmuel maschil begnus, the din of maschil begnus and mesayem beshevach. The machlokes Rav and Shmuel on קוף טז עמוד א in Pesachim, mai begnus? Rav amar מתחילה עובדי עבודת גילולים היו אבותינו and Shmuel amar avadim hayinu. So a few things which tzarich iyun. To mention one of them, lekahora Shmuel's shitta conceptually is, is very difficult. If you have one person who rachmana litzlan is unemployed and very poor, but he is a medakdek bemitzvot and he learns as much Torah as he can and does as much chesed as he can. And you have another guy who, he is Achashveirosh. He is מולך מהודו ועד כוש, but he's also Achashveirosh in terms of his ruchnius also, in terms of his ruchnius also. So mistama to describe Achashveirosh is a gnus and to describe this poor talmid chacham nebech is not a gnus, not such a, not such a gnus. Why should, why should Shmuel think that we should focus so much on the physical or political when it's a davar pashut that obviously the ikkar, the ikkar in life is, is the spiritual? So of course the main gnus is that מתחילה עובדי עבודה זרה היו אבותינו. That's the, that's the gnus, that's the gnus. So there's a lot to discuss but just one, one mahalach very much bekitzur for today. So lekahora the teretz is as follows. So Shmuel avadai agrees with that. Shmuel definitely agrees with that, that that's the ikkar gnus, but Shmuel's saying a different vort. Just to introduce it al derech aggadah, it's even the baal hameimra there is Shmuel as well. The Rambam has in perek tes of hilchos teshuva so kayadua that the Rambam paskins like the meimra of Shmuel that אין בין עולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שיעבוד מלכויות בלבד.
That the, the difference between olam hazeh and yimos hamashiach is shibud malchuyos. So abei zei, abei zei, so why do we want Mashiach so much? I mean ס'איז א גוטע טום. The whole thing is just shibud malchuyos so we're just looking to better our lot politically or physically? And yet it's the Rambam himself counts it as one of the yud gimmel ikkarim, as one of the yud gimmel ikkarim. So the Rambam says ומפני זה נתאוו כל ישראל נביאיהם וחכמיהם לימות המשיח כדי שינוחו ממלכויות שאינן מניחות להם לעסוק בתורה ובמצוות כהוגן וימצאו להם מרגוע וירבו בחכמה כדי שיזכו לחיי העולם הבא לפי שבאותן הימים תרבה הדעה והחכמה והאמת שנאמר כי מלאה הארץ דעה את ה' ונאמר ולא ילמדו איש את אחיו ואיש את רעהו ונאמר והסירותי את לב האבן מבשרכם.
And he goes on, the Rambam has his whole description. וכבר אמרו חכמים הראשונים אין בין העולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שיעבוד מלכויות בלבד.
So what's the vort? So the vort is avadai if we're misaveh limos hamashiach so we're misaveh for the ruchnius, for the kirvas elokim that yimos hamashiach makes possible. Ella mai, so you see how much our, our spiritual destiny is linked to the political or to the physical. That's what the Rambam says. I mean it's an amazing thing. אין בין עולם הזה לימות המשיח. Everything, it's regular old olam hazeh, regular old olam hazeh. You still have to pay your bills, you still bounce checks, mamash olam hazeh, one hundred percent olam hazeh. So what's mipnei zeh? So what are people so misaveh for? So you see it's incredible. We, we're not sufficiently sensitive to that, the extent to which things which happen in the physical, material, political realm determine. determine and inhibit what happens in terms of our ruchaniyut, in terms of our avodat Hashem. Ad kedei kach that the difference between Olam Hazeh and yemot Hamashiach is sheibud malchuyot and yet the difference is between our contemporary plight and ומלאה הארץ דעה את ה' כמים לים מכסים. It's amazing, mamash amazing, mamash amazing. So lechora that's the pshat in Shmuel here also. That's the pshat in Shmuel here also. Shmuel says avada Rav is right that the ikkar gnuss is מתחילה עובדי עבודה זרה היו אבותינו and ועכשיו קרבנו המקום לעבודתו, but the only thing is if you just discuss מתחילה עובדי עבודה זרה היו אבותינו but they had they had already Avraham Avinu had already escaped from the clutches of avoda zara. Where did they regress to avoda zara? They regressed to avoda zara in Mitzrayim. So you have to tell the whole story. The whole story is that why is it that they regressed to avoda zara because it was their response to עבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים. So Shmuel is interested in the same gnuss and shvach that Rav is. The only thing Shmuel says the same way what distinguishes yemot Hamashiach from Olam Hazeh is sheibud malchuyot so that gufa what also was responsible was our reaction, our inability to overcome the avadim hayinu and as a result we ended up reverting back to avoda zara. So b'emet Shmuel is talking about the same. So it's a gevaldigge mussar haskel for us. Gevaldigge mussar haskel for us how much on guard we have to be. So usually we're only on guard if we think that there's some spiritual threat to our ruchaniyut. If we would move to a place chas v'shalom where there would be no no shul so we wouldn't be able to davven so then we would recognize the potential gnuss involved and the effect that could have on us. But we don't sufficiently realize how much just physical and material things affect us. You know we don't we don't stop to cheshbon in terms of choosing a career so what effect that will have on our identity as a ben Torah and how much time we'll spend learning and how much we'll be koveia ittim. No we recognize that we can't move out to a place where there's no Jewish community. So that we recognize. There's not going to be a proper shul and you won't be able to find a chavruta and there'll be no place to send your kids to yeshiva so that we recognize. But we don't recognize that even if you live in New York wherever you live it depends what kind of job you take. If you take a job where it's avadim hayinu where you where to make partner or something you have to work till ten o'clock every night and you get home at ten thirty every night so that also is going to have spiritual consequences and that gufa what Shmuel says מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח it's a chatzi davar if you just come and say that in Mitzrayim we regressed to avoda zara and you don't understand why it happened. You don't understand why it happened so then you haven't really explained the gnuss. The gnuss is the reaction to avadim hayinu but you have to talk about the avadim hayinu also and v'haraya that's gufa according to Shmuel the same ba'al memra that's what distinguishes yemot Hamashiach from Olam Hazeh is the only change Hakadosh Baruch Hu is going to make is in terms of the physical and it will be that which facilitates the the spiritual.