Transcript

Rashi, you're all familiar at the beginning of the Sedra, Rashi describes exactly how HaKadosh Baruch Hu communicated to Moshe Rabbeinu. Rashi says twice, first he says:

יכול ישמעו את קול הקריאה תלמוד לומר קול לו קול אליו משה שומע וכל ישראל לא שומעים.

That when HaKadosh Baruch Hu communicated with Moshe Rabbeinu, the Kol Hashem was only audible to Moshe Rabbeinu, it wasn't audible to anyone else. Rashi says in the next Rashi, again:

מלמד שהיה הקול נפסק ולא היה יוצא חוץ לאהל וחוץ לאהל יכול מפני שהקול נמוך תלמוד לומר את הקול מהו הקול הוא הקול המפורש בתהלים קול ה' בכוח קול ה' בהדר קול ה' שובר ארזים אם כן למה נאמר מאוהל מועד מלמד שהיה הקול נפסק כיוצא בו ביחזקאל וקול כנפי הכרובים נשמע עד החצר החיצונה יכול מפני שהקול נמוך תלמוד לומר כקול אל שדי בדברו אם כן למה נאמר עד החצר החיצונה שכיון שמגיע שם היה נפסק.

So Rashi says that in truth the voice which Moshe Rabbeinu heard was a very loud and powerful voice. But it terminated at Ohel Moed, that there was a miracle, the Ribbono Shel Olam every time he communicated with Moshe Rabbeinu there was a miracle as though Ohel Moed became a soundproof chamber and the kol could not leave Ohel Moed. Question is: we know that all chukei hateva, all natural laws, are also retzon Hashem. Chukei hateva were also created and implanted in the bria by the Ribbono Shel Olam, obviously. So therefore we never find that the Ribbono Shel Olam should overturn chukei hateva gratuitously. He doesn't make a miracle just just for the sake of of a miracle. There has to be good reason because the truth is that every miracle is really a way of overturning one of the chukim which the Ribbono Shel Olam implanted in the world. So why is it? Wouldn't it have made more sense for HaKadosh Baruch Hu to modulate the kol that just naturally the kol was only loud enough that it should be audible to Moshe Rabbeinu and not be audible to those who were more distant or more remote from Ohel Moed? But no, that's not the way the nevuah transpired. The nevuah was, it was

קול ה' בכוח קול ה' בהדר קול ה' שובר ארזים

and yet abruptly the kol was terminated at the end of the Ohel Moed. So I think, I didn't get a chance to check, I think the Sfas Emes, I don't remember if he discusses it on this Rashi, but the idea we're about to say he discusses somewhere. I don't remember if it's in this context or in another context. And he says there's a tremendous lesson which the Torah is teaching us here. And that is, had the kol been modulated, that bederech hateva only Moshe Rabbeinu could hear, so then we would have said, "Okay, so there was a gilluy shechina, but that gilluy shechina was very narrowly restricted and channeled to Moshe Rabbeinu, and we were never invited to partake of..." The kol Hashem was so powerful and so loud and so overwhelming, it should have been audible to anyone and to everyone. How is it that only Moshe Rabbeinu heard? How is it that only Moshe Rabbeinu heard the kol? Apparently only Moshe Rabbeinu was attuned to it. Apparently everyone else was just not, not attuned to it, not sensitive to it, and that's why they didn't hear the kol Hashem. It wasn't that the kol Hashem, it wasn't that the kol Hashem favored Moshe Rabbeinu. No, the kol Hashem was loud and blaring. It was loud and blaring. So those who were, who were in a state of deep slumber, so as strong and as powerful as the kol Hashem is, it's not audible to them even though intrinsically, inherently it's audible. Those who are awake and alert, those who are sensitive, so then the kol is audible. So that was, that's why the nevuah of Moshe Rabbeinu it had to be with a kol Hashem bekoach, had to be powerful and overwhelming and we should all know that the difference between people who see yad Hashem more than we do and us is not that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is favoring them and showing and and revealing himself to them in a with favoritism. No, the yad Hashem is there for everyone to see. The kol Hashem is loud and audible for everyone to hear. But those who are attuned, those who are looking for it, those who are sensitive to it, they will hear it. On other occasions we discussed that lechora this same idea, this same idea underlies the famous Gemara, the famous story of Rabbi Yochanan and Ilfa in the Gemara in Ta'anis. Gemara says that Rabbi Yochanan and Ilfa were the two leading young talmidei chachamim and they were both very destitute. So one day they both decided that they should be mekayem the pasuk of אפס כי לא יהיה בך אביון and that they would leave the beis medrash and they'd go seek their fortune. And then on their way, so they stopped to have a snack under a bridge. And then the following conversation took place between two malachei hashareis. One of the malachei hashareis said let's cause the bridge to collapse so they'll be buried alive under the debris of the bridge because מניחים חיי עולם ועוסקים בחיי שעה. And the other one said no, don't do it because of these two there's one of them that kim lei sha'ata. One of them is yet destined for greatness and we can't interfere with that destiny by killing them both. So the Gemara says that Rabbi Yochanan overheard this conversation between the malachei hashareis and that Ilfa did not. So Rabbi Yochanan said to Ilfa, shama mar midei? Did you hear something? And Ilfa said no, I didn't hear. So Rabbi Yochanan said to himself, so apparently I'm the one of the two who the malachim were talking about. And he told to Ilfa, I had a change of heart, I'm going back to the beis medrash. Rabbi Yochanan went back to the beis medrash and soon thereafter he became the rosh yeshiva. And Ilfa went on his way. Shas is full of Rabbi Yochanan and Ilfa's in this story and in the Gemara in Kesubos and that's it. So the obvious problem when you learn the Gemara is it's not fair. If Ilfa had had the same inside information which Rabbi Yochanan had, so Ilfa also would have changed his mind. So why, why was Rabbi Yochanan given the benefit of trading on inside information when Ilfa was denied that advantage? So the teretz is no, the malachei hashareis spoke in the same tone. They were, Ilfa and Rabbi Yochanan were sitting equidistant from the malachei hashareis and the malachei hashareis spoke in a tone which was equally audible and inaudible to both. But apparently Rabbi Yochanan was very tormented by his decision. And Rabbi Yochanan was looking for a siman min hashamayim as to whether or not he had chosen the right path. Ilfa apparently, for all his greatness, greatness which we can't even conceive of, Ilfa apparently was at peace with his decision. He wasn't looking for any siman min hashamayim as to whether or not. Was going along the right path. So then when this hushed conversation took place between the malachei hashareis in whispers, so Reb Yochanan who was very much not at ease with himself, on edge, so when you're nervous you hear, you hear a pin drop and you jump. But if you're relaxed, so you don't hear any, you don't hear anything, an elephant can walk through the room and you don't notice it. So Reb Yochanan was ill at ease, Reb Yochanan was on edge. So Reb Yochanan heard the whispers and Ilfa didn't hear. So the peshat is, it wasn't that Reb Yochanan was given inside information. Reb Yochanan was looking for a siman min hashamayim for some guidance, for some directive as to what he should be doing. And Ilfa was comfortable with his decision. So Reb Yochanan heard the whispers, Ilfa did not hear the whispers. It's the same yesod, that the Kol Hashem is equally accessible and available and audible to everyone. And whether we hear it depends upon how much we sharpen and sensitize our senses, our hearing. And it's not a function of whether or not the Kol Hashem is speaking. The Kol Hashem speaks to each and every one of us, it's a question of whether or not we're sensitive and how sensitive we are determines how loud or even whether we'll hear even a kol demama daka when the Ribono Shel Olam communicates that way as well. That's why the Torah says in Parshas Va'eschanan in describing

בצר לך ומצאוך כל הדברים האלה באחרית הימים ושבת עד ה' אלהיך ושמעת בקולו.

So the Torah says

וביקשת משם את ה' אלהיך ומצאת כי תדרשנו בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך.

That we find Hakadosh Baruch Hu only if we look for Hakadosh Baruch Hu. The same lesson that we can't wait for kedusha to overtake and overwhelm us, but we have to be looking for kedusha, we have to always constantly pursue kedusha. One component of the uvikashta misham, that we should constantly pursue kedusha, constantly look for Yad Hashem, constantly try to find Yad Hashem, this too we've discussed on other occasions. The Torah says it has to be בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך. Bechol levavecha we know Rashi tells us in the parsha of Krias Shema means bishnei yetzarecha. What does bishnei yetzarecha mean? So bishnei yetzarecha means that the yetzer hatov symbolizes inyanim ruchniyim, spiritual pursuits and the yetzer hara symbolizes devarim gashmiyim, material pursuits. And the Torah says as much as we might try and should try our best to maximize the amount of time we spend on devarim ruchniyim and minimize as much as possible the amount of time we spend on devarim gashmiyim, but al korchacha the way the world was created we spend a lot of time on material pursuits. Whether it's parnassa or whether it's eating and drinking and sleeping, we spend a lot of time on material pursuits. And the Torah says that our bakasha, searching Hakadosh Baruch Hu, will only be successful, it's not enough that we search for Him when we're in the beis medrash and that we're mindful of Him when we're in the beis medrash, but it's equally imperative that we have to search to see Hashem, to see the Yad Hashem even when we're bishnei yetzarecha, even when we're involved with devarim gashmiyim. Even when a person is involved in his parnassa or a person is involved in studies preliminary to his parnassa, there always has to be a context of leshem shamayim, there always has to be a context of doing it for the sake of avodas Hashem. A person always has to be alert and sensitive to hashgacha pratis which is guiding him, not just the siyata d'shmaya in understanding a shvere Tosafos. siyatta d'shmaya in making a business deal, in getting a new client v'chulu v'chulu. All that is part of the כי תדרשנו בכל לבבך. It's not just enough that we we have to look for Hashem in our talmud torah and shmiras mitzvos, but in everything we do. As one component of that, wanted to begin this week and bli neder to continue in coming weeks, before Pesach, after Pesach, just to try to mention some of the issues which can confront a person in different professions. Sometimes we let our guard down, so when you walk into the office, so now we're practicing law or we're practicing medicine or we're in business, so okay, so this is neutral, this is my parnasah, okay, I'm doing my parnasah l'shem shamayim, and but we have to be mindful that that many times there are issues which arise within those professions where one has to be mindful of what the Torah tells us. I'll just give a couple of examples to try to concretize what we're talking about. A couple of examples to illustrate, and bli neder we'll try to go into some more detail in coming weeks. But let's take by way of example the profession of law. Someone becomes a lawyer. So one issue which one has to be mindful is, it says in Shulchan Aruch that the issur which is considered an issur chamur me'od of arkaos of a Jew taking a dispute to a secular court and not going to beis din is not only on the two baalei din but the issur of arkaos is even on anyone who's machzik yedei someone who's being dan b'arkaos. So the clear application of that l'chora, again, this is just by way of illustrating, is let's say you're practicing law and you have a frum client and the other litigant is also frum. So then it's not the, the lawyer can't take an attitude of it's not my business, I'm just doing my job, I'm just presenting the case, I'm just arguing the case, no, he has to know that his client has a heter to be in arkaos, that his client has a heter not to be pursuing his claim in a beis din but has a right to be in arkaos, and he has to be mindful of that. Sometimes you can have, unfortunately, but sometimes you have that both the litigants on either side of the fence, they're both Jews and they're both frum, and then the lawyer, it's his business to know, it's his business to know whether or not al pi din, al pi din, whether or not this dispute belongs in arkaos. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't and it's clearly an issue which a lawyer would have to be mindful of. Another example, this would pertain to equally to a lawyer, to an accountant, to different professions. If you're involved in a transaction which deals with ribbis, which deals with ribbis. Again, so one might have the attitude of I'm just drawing up the papers for the loan, I'm not the malveh, I'm not the loveh, and if he doesn't go to me so he can go to another lawyer and the Rema is meikel on this question in terms of lifnei iver, and yet the Mishnah says at the end of Eizehu Neshech that when it comes to ribbis, so the issur is not only on the malveh and the loveh but it's on the sofer, it's on the eiden, it's on everyone who's, and this is not just mitzad lifnei iver, this is mitzad the issurei ribbis. It's on everyone who's involved in arranging the halva'ah which carries with it ribbis ktzutzah. So again, there may be differences between ribbis d'oraisa and ribbis d'rabbanan and nothing we're discussing is to relieve one of asking a shaila but just to alert one to questions that come up in future professional life so an accountant even someone who's not the accountant even if you're a secretary who works in an accounting firm and you're doing the books on and your boss is a frum guy and he just bought a note from a bank which is against which is against another Jew so all these these kinds of transactions again whether you're involved as a lawyer whether involved as an accountant these are all transactions which you certainly have to ask a shaila what the answer will be will depend upon obviously on the partim and the pirtei partim of the individual case but there's a very dangerous mindset that you do business fairly according to what the rules of business are and that's true but there may also even what may be considered fair business practice or may just be considered run-of-the-mill legal work can often can often pose serious shailos and it's certainly very important as part of our כשדשנו בכל לבבך בשני יצריך to be very mindful ba'asher anu sham to shailos which again if we'll be sensitive we'll recognize but if we're not sensitive to it chas v'shalom people can be nichshal right and left to these kinds of questions so bli neder in coming weeks we'll try to highlight some of them very close to Pesach so maybe just a couple of ha'aros a little bit about Pesach we're all familiar the Mishna Berurah has his question in Be'ur Halacha when the Mechaber says that by korech he says zecher l'mikdash k'Hillel so the Mishna Berurah asks how can it be there should be a ba'al hafsek the brachos of matzah and maror to relate to the krichah as well so why are we saying zecher l'mikdash k'Hillel at this point and the Mishna Berurah is so bothered with the kasha ad k'dei kach that he says maybe it's even a taus sofer in the in the Mechaber and maybe what it's supposed to say is ochel zecher l'mikdash but the Mechaber never meant that you're actually supposed to say the words zecher l'mikdash k'Hillel as we actually do and the kasha is the kasha is the kasha the Rav zichrono l'vracha not only did he say zecher l'mikdash as it says in Shulchan Aruch he used to actually say it twice reflecting a machlokes Rishonim of what the krichah was between the Rambam and the Rashbam what the krichah was bizman hamikdash whether the krichah was matzah u'maror or whether the krichah was Pesach matzah u'maror so he actually used to say the paragraph twice

היה אוכל פסח היה כורך פסח מצה ומרור או היה כורך מצה ומרור ואוכלם ביחד

so it was not choshesh for this kasha of the Mishna Berurah what's taka the pshat again taking Shulchan Aruch k'pshuto taking Shulchan Aruch k'pshuto so why shouldn't there be a problem of hefsek so one teretz lichora would be as follows according to some Rishonim it's not a teretz for everyone the Rav used to call attention to the fact that there's a machlokes between the Rambam and the Ramban in the

משנה של רבן גמליאל היה אומר רבן גמליאל היה אומר כל שלא אמר שלשה דברים אלו בפסח לא יצא ידי חובתו

so לא יצא ידי חובתו yedei chovas what so the Rambam says ידי חובת סיפור יציאת מצרים that if a person doesn't say מרור זה מצה זו פסח זה so it's lacking in sippur yetzias Mitzrayim and the Ramban says no it's lacking in mitzvas achila it's lacking in mitzvas achila that the מצוות אכילת מצה אכילת מרור אכילת פסח is deficient if a person doesn't explain why you're eating it why you're eating it the Ramban says in Milchamos and Brachos that sometimes you find the lashon of לא יצא just means l'chatchila it doesn't mean b'di'eved which is what it normally means sometimes it means only l'chatchila and he says as a tuvta that he quotes the Mishna of Rabban Gamliel and says לא שיהיה חייב לחזור ולאכול. Rabban Gamliel doesn't mean to say, even though he said lo yatza, he doesn't mean that you have to eat it again. So you see clearly from the Ramban that the Ramban learned pshat that it's part of mitzvas achila. That's what Rabban Gamliel was talking about. And the other raya that's mentioned is from the Ramban in Sefer Hamitzvos. When the Ramban says that havas bikkurim and krias bikkurim should be two different mitzvos, so in that context also. So now according to the Ramban kuntres, according to the Ramban, so maybe the זכר למקדש כהלל, maybe the זכר למקדש כהלל is a kiyum in that mitzva. Meaning that bizman hamikdash, bizman hamikdash, so they obviously didn't say זכר למקדש כהלל, right? But not only didn't they say זכר למקדש כהלל bizman hamikdash, but they didn't have to go out of their way to discuss koreich because koreich wasn't a separate mitzva, right? Koreich wasn't a separate mitzva. It was a way of being mekayem mitzvas pesach. It was a way of being mekayem mitzvas pesach. צלי אש ומצות על מרורים יאכלוהו, so there was no separate mitzva of koreich. So therefore Rabban Gamliel haya omer, Rabban Gamliel's nusach of the, Rabban Gamliel's nusach was totally sufficient bizman hamikdash. Leachar zman hamikdash where we have a mitzvas koreich, where we have we have another mitzvas achila, we have a mitzvas achila of maror derabbanan. We have a mitzvas achila of matza d'oraissa. We also have a mitzva of koreich. We also have a mitzva of koreich, so now the din of kol shelo amar applies to the koreich also. That by the koreich also we have to explain what the significance of the achila is. What's the significance of the achila? So if you say that this is midin mitzvas achila, midin mitzvas achila, so then it shouldn't be a hefsek. And meicha tisei that it should constitute a hefsek if it's mitzad the mitzvas achila? Ay, so why didn't they, why didn't we put koreich along with Rabban Gamliel? Not so terrible. Not so terrible. So maybe that's the pshat according to the Ramban why it wouldn't constitute a hefsek, why it wouldn't constitute a hefsek. Famous comment of the Netziv, famous comment of the Netziv when we tell the story of the Tannaim

שהיו מספרים ביציאת מצרים כל אותו הלילה עד שבאו תלמידיהם ואמרו להם רבותינו הגיע זמן קריאת שמע של שחרית.

So one of them was Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah. One of them was Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah. So the Netziv has this kasha, what was Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah doing up past his bedtime if according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah the סוף זמן אכילת פסח and mimaila סוף זמן אכילת מצה and mimaila סוף זמן סיפור יציאת מצרים is ad chatzos? So why was Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah up all night? He should have gone to bed at chatzos and let Rabbi Akiva who holds that mitzvas pesach and mitzvas matza and sippur yetzias mitzrayim is kol oso halaila, so let him, let him. So the Netziv answers, the Netziv answers because Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah also holds that the mitzva of zechiras yetzias mitzrayim is noheig at night, right? אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה in the Mishna at the end of the first perek in Berachos that we say in the Haggadah. Well, and he explains that's the smichas haparsiyos in the Haggadah. That we quote one right after the other to explain the story that even though for Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah the mitzva of sippur yetzias mitzrayim had expired at chatzos, so nevertheless he hung around because lishitoso there was now there was still a מצות זכירת יציאת מצרים which is noheig at night. Right? So that's the Netziv claims that's the smichas haparsiyos.

מעשה ברבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע ורבי אלעזר בן עזריה ורבי עקיבא ורבי טרפון שהיו מסובין בבני ברק והיו מספרים ביציאת מצרים כל אותו הלילה עד שבאו תלמידיהם ואמרו להם רבותינו הגיע זמן קריאת שמע של שחרית.

And then

אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה הרי אני כבן שבעים שנה ולא זכיתי שתאמר יציאת מצרים בלילות.

Okay. But ba'emes l'chora it's difficult to understand this Netziv. It's very sharp, very beautiful, but it's difficult to understand. First of all, mekubalim anu, the Rav quotes Rav Chaim all the differences between. of yetzias Mitzrayim. And to say that the mitzvah of zecher yetzias Mitzrayim, that there's a din of kol hamarbeh and that that justified רבי אלעזר בן עזריה being up all night is difficult in light of that distinction between sippur and zecher which Reb Chaim drew. But even more difficult is the story, if the question is what were they doing continuing sippur yetzias Mitzrayim after the mitzvah had expired, so the story is difficult l'chol hadayos. רבותינו הגיע זמן קריאת שמע של שחרית, so presumably it means vasiqin, I guess. Presumably it means vasiqin. Whatever it means, it certainly means after amud hashachar. It certainly means after amud hashachar. So the story is no more problematic for רבי אלעזר בן עזריה than it is for Rabbi Akiva. So the same way Rabbi Akiva stayed past amud hashachar, so רבי אלעזר בן עזריה stayed past, past chatzos. So what's takeh the pshat? What's takeh the pshat? So l'chora what this story is coming to tell us is something else. What it's coming to tell us is, so what's takeh the pshat here? Presumably the heiligeh tanna'im, so they were very disciplined. They didn't, let's say the stories we have of the Vilna Gaon and if the mitzvah of simcha in Purim was until, until shkiah he was mesame'ach in Purim and then snap, boom, and then back in his room and wasn't Purim anymore. So if the Vilna Gaon could make that rapid precise transition, so then the tanna'im could do it also. So what's takeh the pshat that they were continuing sippur yetzias Mitzrayim past amud hashachar? Ela mai, the point of the story is to teach us that sippur yetzias Mitzrayim is accomplished through Talmud Torah. That's the point of the story. Veharaya that sippur yetzias Mitzrayim is through Talmud Torah, exclusively through Talmud Torah, so mimaila the tanna'im didn't have to be makpid on their zmanim. So so what that it's past chatzos and it's no more מצוות סיפור יציאת מצרים? But everything you do in for sippur yetzias Mitzrayim is also a kiyum in mitzvas Talmud Torah. And so what that it's past amud hashachar? It wasn't stam that they got carried away and that and that they lost track of time. No, mista'ama they were, the Vilna Gaon was totally involved in his mitzvah of Purim and nevertheless he knew what time it was. So the tanna'im, they were totally involved but they also knew what time it was. Ela mai, the point of the story is no, that mitzvas sippur yetzias Mitzrayim is through Talmud Torah. Through, so mimaila it doesn't make a difference what time it is. You can go past chatzos, you can go past amud hashachar. Okay, so now the clock has run out in sippur yetzias Mitzrayim, but there's no reason to stop in mid-sentence. It's still Talmud Torah, still Talmud Torah. L'chora that's the point of the story because l'chol hadayos they went beyond סוף זמן סיפור יציאת מצרים. What about the Netziv's other kasha? Why do we quote the mishna of of רבי אלעזר בן עזריה which is halachos of zecher yetzias Mitzrayim? So mimaila that we discussed the halachos of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim, כנגד ארבעה בנים דיברה תורה is the halachos of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim, how you're supposed to tell sippur yetzias Mitzrayim, but why are we discussing the halachos of zecher yetzias Mitzrayim? So here some have the girsa of אמר להם רבי אלעזר בן עזריה that that discussion happened the night of Pesach. That the

אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה הרי אני כבן שבעים שנה

so he he made that statement the night of Pesach. He made that statement the night of Pesach. So stam what the Ba'al HaHaggadah wants... Maybe yesh ladon bozeh, and maybe the chiddush is again, so we know that Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim, the Haggadah amuniyos says the Tosefta, חייב אדם לעסוק בהלכות פסח, that all Masechet Psachim is you learn Masechet Psachim the night of the 15th of Nissan, so all of that is a kiyum in mitzvah Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim. Mitzvah Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim. You learn hilchos Korban Pesach, of Korban Pesach, even the halachos of shchita, shchitas HaPesach is Yud Daled, you're not learning about what happens the night of the 15th, you're learning about shchitas HaPesach. No, there's no question that all of that is a kiyum in mitzvah Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim. So the shaala is, what if a person will be meayen in mitzvah zecher Yetziat Mitzrayim? So on the other hand, it's clear that Arba Avos Nezikin is not a kiyum in mitzvah Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim the night of the night of Pesach. What about the mitzvah zecher Yetziat Mitzrayim? Would that be a kiyum in mitzvah Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim? So maybe that's the chiddush. Maybe that's why the Baal HaHaggadah says and maybe that's why רבי אלעזר בן עזריה raised his safek with them that night, not to not to justify his presence there beyond Chatzos, but on the contrary, to tell us a chiddush that it's a kiyum in Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim to discuss the same way Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim you can discuss the halachos of Korban Pesach, shchitas HaPesach of Yud Daled in the afternoon, that it's also a kiyum in mitzvah Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim to discuss the mitzvah of zecher Yetziat Mitzrayim. Okay, maybe bli neder next week Sunday and Monday we'll also spend some time on one of these. Shiur of Rav Halap, Menahel HaYeshiva, Rav Blau, Mashgiach HaYeshiva, talmidei HaYeshiva.

הא לחמא עניא די אכלו אבהתנא בארעא דמצרים כל דכפין ייתי וייכול כל דצריך ייתי ויפסח השתא הכא לשנה הבאה בארעא דישראל השתא עבדא לשנה הבאה בני חורין.

It's a very strange opening to Maggid. It's not mentioned in the Mishna again. Most of the most of the Haggadah, the structure of the Haggadah you can find in the Mishnayos in Arvei Psachim. There's no mention of Ha Lachma Anya. Maggid in the Mishna begins with מזגו לו כוסו וכאן הבן שואל. No mention of Ha Lachma Anya. It especially seems out of place because we know the braisa on this Mishna tells us that the mitzvah Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim is supposed to be fulfilled in a question-answer format.

תנו רבנן חכם בנו שואלו ואם אינו חכם אשתו שואלתו ואם לאו הוא שואל לעצמו ואפילו שני תלמידי חכמים שיודעין בהלכות הפסח שואלין זה לזה.

So we know that the mitzvah is והיה כי ישאלך והגדת, that mitzvah Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim is supposed to be fulfilled in a question-answer format. Ad kedei kach, ad kedei kach, that there's so much that we do kedei sheyishalu to prompt the questions that we should be able to be mkayem mitzvah Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim in this question-answer format. So it's very strange that we should have anything prematurely inserted before the Kan Haben Shoel, whether he asks whatever he wants or whether he asks Mah Nishtana, whatever, that's not relevant now, but it's strange that we should have anything prematurely before we've established this structure of question-answer. So it's very strange that the Ha Lachma Anya appears here. In addition, just the sentence itself seems somewhat disjointed. Somewhat of a non-sequitur. So number one is הא לחמא עניא די אכלו אבהתנא בארעא דמצרים. That's one one nice thought. And then כל דכפין ייתי וייכול וכל דצריך ייתי ויפסח is another nice noble thought. And then a third one,

השתא הכא לשנה הבאה בארעא דישראל השתא עבדא לשנה הבאה בני חורין,

a third inspiring goal, but not necessarily related thematically. And we sort of lump them all together and that's how we begin Maggid. So lekhora the simple pshat is we're all familiar with a Gemara here. It appears on the previous amud in Arvei Pesachim, it appears in Kol Sha'ah as well, that לחם עוני לחם שעונין עליו דברים הרבה. That's the girsa which we have in the Gemara, that seems to be Rashi's girsa as well. Rashi says what's שעונין עליו דברים הרבה? So Rashi says things out of sequence for whatever reason, גומר עליו את ההלל וve-omer alav ha-Haggadah. So devarim harbe means that the entire Haggadah is said with the matzah on the table, right? Hence our minhag to have the matzah on the table throughout the Seder. So the simple pshat is that Ha Lachma Anya is not a part of Maggid, but rather just simple, no chidushim, Ha Lachma Anya is the introduction to Maggid. And in accordance with this din of לחם עוני לחם שעונין עליו דברים הרבה, so the entire Maggid according to shittas Rashi should be related, should be mesudar with reference to the matzah. So mimeila before Maggid, we asked why does Ha Lachma Anya come prematurely before we've begun the question-answer format? So the answer is adderaba, we want it to come before we begin Maggid proper, before we begin Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim proper, because that's our way of accentuating the kiyum of לחם עוני לחם שעונין עליו דברים הרבה, not merely by physically having the matzah there, but by calling attention to it in case, in case someone at the table didn't get the subtle hint of all the matzah on the table, so we drive the point home, Ha Lachma Anya. לחם עוני לחם שעונין עליו דברים הרבה. Parenthetically it could be, even though the Rambam does quote the Ha Lachma Anya in the nussach ha-Haggadah which he has, שנהגו ישראל בזמן הגלות, again if you look in the halakhos in Perek Zayin and Perek Ches, so there is no mention of it. So perhaps it's for this reason. The Rambam apparently, if you look, the Rambam says that when they were oker ha-shulchan מלפני קורא ההגדה, right? Our taking the ka'arah off. bizman ha-Mishna, bizman ha-Rishonim was akiras ha-shulchan. So we return it right away. We return it right away after Ma Nishtana. And the Rambam doesn't return the shulchan, doesn't have the ka'arah returned until prior to רבן גמליאל היה אומר. רבן גמליאל היה אומר. The Rambam apparently, Rabbeinu Chananel's girsa in the Gemara of לחם שעונין עליו דברים, he doesn't have harbe. And he says that it refers perhaps exclusively to Rabban Gamliel's matzah zu. That only that is a kiyum in לחם שעונין עליו דברים, but there is no kiyum to be mesader the entire Haggadah with reference to the matzah. Tosafot is a little bit even though Tosafot has the shulchan being returned immediately, but Tosafot says the reason we have to bring the shulchan back, Tosafot says ha-matzah ve-ha-maror alav are on the shulchan, שהרי צריך לומר בהגדה מצה זו מרור זה. So Tosafot also you have somewhat the impression it's not as clear-cut as it is in the Rambam that the din of onen alav devarim doesn't refer to the entire Haggadah as Rashi understands it, but refers specifically to the matzah and maror zeh of Rabban Gamliel's din. So then mimeila within the Rambam's view, so the truth is that Ha Lachma Anya, you can't say this pshat that Ha Lachma Anya is meant to accentuate the kiyum of לחם עוני לחם שעונין עליו דברים הרבה because right now we're not really dealing with that mitzvah. So mimeila the Rambam quotes it, assuming that what he has in the Haggadah is he put in and not the printer put in, but even if the Rambam wrote it, so the Rambam puts it that this is the nussach ha-Haggadah shenahagu kol Yisrael, but in the halakhos it doesn't appear because in the Rambam's framework the truth is that Ha Lachma Anya isn't as important and significant as it is according to Rashi. Or in other words, Ha Lachma Anya is not the beginning of Maggid but is a hakdama, is an introduction to Maggid. And basically what we're saying is that the entire Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim revolves around matzah, it relates to matzah. That's the axis around which Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim revolves. Now likhora, this is true al pi halakha, based on the din of לחם עוני לחם שעונין עליו דברים הרבה, but al pi aggadah as well, that we need the Ha Lachma Anya at the. What does that mean? We know the sfarim quote that the Zohar refers to matzah as Lachma d'Hemnusa, Lechem Emuna. It signifies and also has a segula that it's conducive to helping us cultivate and develop our middas ha'emuna. That's what Mitzvas Matzah represents and not just represents, that's what Mitzvas Matzah constitutes. Why is it? Because the pasuk from Yirmiyahu which we say in Haftarah of

זכרתי לך חסד נעוריך אהבת כלולותיך לכתך אחרי במדבר בארץ לא זרועה

that the Ribbono Shel Olam says that the emuna which Klal Yisrael demonstrated by going out quickly into the midbar be'eretz lo zerua was so extraordinary that kaviyachol it was a chesed to the Ribbono Shel Olam kaviyachol. זכרתי לך חסד נעוריך. So matzah represents Lachma d'Hemnusa. It represents and it constitutes emuna. Parenthetically, lechora, that's the pshat. We all know based on the Teshuvot Ha'Rosh, the Rosh has a chumra, the Rosh says that when the Gemara says that there's a shiur mil which is necessary in order for the dough to become chametz from the time