Transcript

What exactly is the mitzvah of Sippur Yitziat Mitzrayim? So the Rambam at the beginning of Perek Zayin of Hilchot Chametz u-Matzah, mitzvah aseh she’ba’Torah

לספר בניסים ונפלאות שנעשו לאבותינו במצרים בליל חמישה עשר בניסן שנאמר זכור את היום הזה אשר יצאתם ממצרים.

So the Rambam defines it as lesaper be-nissim ve-nifla’ot. And u-masa the Rosh quotes a Tosefta. The Tosefta says, I think the Haghot Maimoniyot here on the Rambam also has the Tosefta, that חייב אדם לעסוק בהלכות הפסח כל הלילה. And the Rosh, it’s in Siman Lamed Gimmel.

חייב אדם לעסוק כל הלילה בהלכות הפסח וביציאת מצרים לספר בניסים ונפלאות שעשה לנו הקדוש ברוך הוא ולאבותינו עד שתחטפנו שינה.

V-hachi amrinan in Tosefta,

חייב אדם לעסוק בהלכות הפסח בהלכות פסח וביציאת מצרים כל הלילה. וזה ששנינו מעשה ברבי אליעזר ויהושע שהיו מסובים בבני ברק.

So the Gaon is magiah in that Tosefta and he doesn’t have the words be-hilchot ha-Pesach. The way the Gaon is magiah, so it doesn’t say it in the Tosefta, but the way we have it and the way the Rosh quotes it, which is how it’s quoted in Shulchan Aruch, so then it says meforash that the tardut of the Sippur Yitziat Mitzrayim is the Talmud Torah of the mitzvat ha-layla. And that’s how it says in Shulchan Aruch as well. Even though the Gaon doesn’t have it in Tosefta, I think it’s the Gaon who has in the Ben Chacham that the answer to the Ben Chacham is אף אתה אמור לו כהלכות הפסח, then he has the word ad, אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן, meaning you don’t just tell him the din of אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן, but ad, meaning you learn ganz Masechet Pesachim, אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן. Okay, just in terms of what the mitzvah is. Rambam introduces his Haggadah with the comment,

נוסח ההגדה שנהגו בו ישראל בזמן הגלות כך הוא, מעשה כל שני ואומר.

So what was different, what is different about our nusach ha-haggadah reflecting the fact that it’s bi’zman ha-galut? So clearly the Ha Lachma Anya, the Mah Nishtanah is different. The Mah Nishtanah in the Mishna has in Mah Nishtanah the question about basar tzali, which we obviously omit.

שבכל הלילות אנו אוכלין בשר צלי שלוק ומבושל הלילה הזה כולו צלי.

Our Mah Nishtanah is different. What else is different about the Haggadah? The bracha of Asher Ge’alanu is also machloket Tanna’im in

קטז עב. רבי טרפון אומר אשר גאלנו וגאל את אבותינו ממצרים ולא היה חותם.

Rabbi Tarfon’s matbe’a ha-bracha of Asher Ge’alanu was a bracha k’tzara.

אשר גאלנו וגאל את אבותינו ממצרים ולא היה חותם. רבי עקיבא אומר כן ה׳ אלהינו ואלהי אבותינו

etc. יגיענו למועדים ולרגלים אחרים v’chulu. And bli neder maybe we'll discuss it later, and another possible difference in terms of the nusach ha'haggadah. I think the meforshei ha'haggadah, the Abarbanel amongst the others, say that historically Ha Lachma Anya was introduced during Galus Bavel, and that's why it's in Aramaic when the rest of the Haggadah is all in Hebrew. The way we say it, it's more of an introduction to Maggid, right? We don't fill the kos until after Ha Lachma Anya. The Rambam sounds like maybe he filled the kos before Ha Lachma Anya. Either way, what's the pshat in Ha Lachma Anya? The pshat is like this: again, השתא הכא לשנה הבאה בארעא דישראל, so it's not stam divrei chizuk in terms of emunah, which it is, but rather the pshat is that the divrei chizuk in terms of emunah is connected to מצות סיפור יציאת מצרים in the sense that the shayla is kos revi'i, which doesn't really focus on yetzias mitzrayim, so what if anything does that have to do with sippur yetzias mitzrayim? So one mahalach is, okay, so you do have nishmas, you do have a little bit, right, mimitzrayim ge'altanu, you do have in nishmas, but it's certainly not the focus. So one understanding is that the sippur is supposed to be mechazek a person's emunah, and in being mechazek a person's emunah is supposed to help arouse or intensify the tzippiya liyeshua which is expressed in kos revi'i, and itachen that that's the pshat in Ha Lachma Anya, that especially in Galus Bavel, so they were emphasizing again what the thrust of the sippur's supposed to be, is not just again emunah looking retrospectively, but emunah and tzippiya looking prospectively as well. In Ma Nishtana, the Vilna Gaon has a very, very beautiful pshat in Ma Nishtana. So we, right, in different languages, Ma Nishtana's referred to as the four questions. The Gaon says no, really there's one question. The one question is מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות? And then we flesh out the question, we sort of elaborate the question with four examples. But the real question is מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות? And the pshat in the question is as follows, says the Gaon: that ordinarily if you have a mitzvah which isn't operative around the clock, you have an added mitzvah, so that mitzvah will be operative in the daytime, not at nighttime. You have mitzvas shofar, it's not operative around the clock, so it's going to be in the daytime, it's not going to be in the nighttime. You have mitzvas lulav, it's going to be in the daytime, it's not going to be in the nighttime. So what is it, מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות, that we have ribui mitzvos, but the ribui mitzvos here are balaila rather than bayom. What ribui mitzvos do you have? Shebechol haleilos, and that's what we, again, elaborate the question with the all shebechol haleilos. So what's the answer then? If that's the question, so what's the answer to the question? So the Gaon has another kedarko bakodesh, incredible insight.

יכול מראש חודש תלמוד לומר ביום ההוא אי ביום ההוא יכול מבעוד יום תלמוד לומר בעבור זה לא אמרתי אלא בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך.

So says the Gaon, so if you look, yom has two meanings. Yom can either refer to a twenty-four hour period... denote exclusively the nighttime component of the day. You don't find yom used that way. It's either referring to a whole 24-hour unit or it's referring to the nighttime component in contradistinction to the day. Excuse me, it's referring to the daytime component in contradistinction to the night. Over here, what emerges is והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא לאמר is that that yom means exclusively night. So says the Gaon, so what that means is, I don't remember exactly how he says it, so I can't vouch for whether this exact formulation is precise, but the Gaon says that basically on a kabbalah-dikke level, the properties which are generally associated with day, the night of Tes-Vov has those qualities. That al-pi kabbalah there's a difference between day and night, and that's what's responsible for the ribbuy mitzvos by yom in contrast to the night. And Leil Tes-Vov, I don't know if he says this or this is the understanding which one brings to the Gaon, and Leil Tes-Vov because it's a zman geulah and the geulah is nimsheles to yom, so Leil Tes-Vov again has the inherent qualities of yom. And that's really again this idea again of yom representing geulah, so you have that again at the end of Nirtzah, תאיר כאור יום חשכת לילה, right? So cheshkas laylah means Olam HaZeh in its present state, and tair ke-or yom to illuminate with the light of day refers to le-asid lav with the geulah. So according to the Gaon, that then is the answer to the Mah Nishtanah, that it's a zman geulah, that Leil Tes-Vov again in terms of its qualities is really a zman of yom, it's not a zman of laylah. Okay, then we continue with Avadim Hayinu. So the simple pshat is that the Mishna says in Kuf-Tes-Zayin that מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח. Rav and Shmuel give two different interpretations. Rav says מתחילה עובדי עבודה זרה היו אבותינו, Shmuel says Avadim Hayinu, Rabbeinu Chananel already says that avdinan ke-tavaihu. The Rambam also, ka-yadua, quotes both views, so apparently Rav and Shmuel aren't necessarily arguing. At any rate, so we do both. So the simple pshat is Avadim Hayinu is Shmuel's maschil be-gnus, and then a little bit later we get to מתחילה עובדי עבודה זרה היו אבותינו which is Rav's gnus. The Rav, zecher tzaddik li-vracha, had a very, very beautiful he'arah here. He said it doesn't really hang together. So if that's how you read the Haggadah, so Avadim Hayinu, so we started with maschil be-gnus on one level, and then for some reason we now get distracted and the מעשה ברבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע has nothing to do with מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח and כנגד ארבעה בנים דברה תורה. So the Rav said as follows. First of all, he said if you take a look at how the Rambam quotes that Mishna, so the lashon of the Mishna is

מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח ודורש מארמי אובד אבי עד שיגמור כל הפרשה כולה.

So the way the Rambam quotes that din in פרק ז הלכה ד, וצריך להתחיל בגנות ולסיים בשבח, then he quotes both Rav and Shmuel's versions of the מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח, and then he says והוא שידרוש מארמי אובד אבי עד שיגמור כל הפרשה. That it's not that Aramei Oved Avi is an additional din, Aramei Oved Avi is the text for the מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח, at least of the Avadim Hayinu and the נסים ונפלאות שנעשו לנו בחירותנו. So it's not that Aramei Oved Avi, A: מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח, B: you should darshan Aramei Oved Avi, but rather the Rambam says

וכן מתחיל להודיע שעבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים וכל הרעה שגמלונו ומסיים בניסים ונפלאות שנעשו לנו בחירותנו והוא שידרוש מארמי אובד אבי עד שיגמור כל הפרשה.

So it's Aramei Oved Avi is the text for מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח. hashta de-asina le-hacha, so the Rav The Rambam says as follows: When we say avadim hayinu, it’s not, that’s not Shmuel’s מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח, because the Rambam says that Shmuel’s מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח הוא שידרוש מארמי אובד אבי. So this is no. The child asks questions. So what are you going to do? You're going to give an lang? You're going to tell him, listen carefully to the next two hours of the Haggadah and see if you can figure out what the answer? No, the kid asks a question, so give him an answer. Give him an answer in a minute that he understands the answer. So avadim hayinu is again a short direct answer to the ktanim. Now, having addressed the ktanim's questions, so now we begin. What do we begin with? So we begin within this paragraph that we have it as one paragraph of avadim hayinu, so we already begin discussing the halachot of sippur yetziat mitzrayim.

ואפילו כולנו חכמים כולנו נבונים כולנו זקנים מצווה עלינו לספר וכל המרבה לספר הרי זה משובח. מעשה ברבי אליעזר וברבי יהושע.

So we're talking about the halachot of sippur yetziat mitzrayim. Part of the halachot of sippur yetziat mitzrayim כנגד ארבעה בנים דיברה תורה, that the story has to be tailored, has to be individualized according to the לפי דעתו של בן אביו מלמדו, according to the level of the child. And we conclude this call it introductory part of introductory part of Maggid where we're dealing with the halachot with hayachol merosh chodesh? Again, also the halachot of the zman. Now, having taken care of that, so now we begin מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח for the first time in adaraba. We actually begin with Rav's

מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח. מתחילה עובדי עבודה זרה היו אבותינו,

and then after that, we then go back to we then proceed to Aramei oveid avi, which is Shmuel's מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח. Gevaldige gevaldige ha'arah. One of the questions that comes up here is why we have the mishna of רבי אלעזר בן עזריה about the zechirat yetziat mitzrayim. Why is that germane to mitzvas sippur? So I think it was the Rav used to point out, it sort of it answers the question but then just basically just pushes the question back a notch. That if you take a look, the Rambam has the girsa of

אמר להם רבי אלעזר בן עזריה הרי אני כבן שבעים שנה.

Not

אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אבל אמר להם רבי אלעזר בן עזריה.

Who's the lahem? Meaning the way the Rambam has the girsa, the Rambam understood that this discussion took place at that Seder in Bnei Brak that we described just before.

מעשה ברבי אליעזר וברבי יהושע ורבי אלעזר בן עזריה ורבי עקיבא ורבי טרפון שהיו מסובין בבני ברק.

So now we know what part of the discussion was that night, was about the mitzvah. Okay, it doesn't really answer the question in the sense it says why it explains why we quote the mishna, but obviously the basic question just remains. So how come the tannaim were talking about it that night? Okay, different answers in the meforshim and the Haggadah. The mishna which has Mah Nishtanah,

מזגו לו כוס שני וכאן הבן שואל אביו, ואם אין דעת בבן אביו מלמדו, מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות

etcetera. So the famous question is how does the son know all this if it hasn't happened yet? How does he know אנו מטבילין שתי פעמים etcetera? How does he know that we're only going to eat basar tzali at this point? Okay, so there are answers to those questions. But the Rambam, it's quite clear, the Rambam learned pshat in the mishna, the Rambam writes as follows in perek chet of chametz umatzah: He says, מוזגין הכוס השני וכאן הבן שואל, ve'omer hakorei מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות. So the Rambam clearly learned pshat that כאן הבן שואל whatever he wants to ask, you don't have a script for what the child is going to ask. He asks whatever he. whatever's on his mind he asks. Then hakorei, meaning the one who's saying the Haggadah, right? The Rambam's reflecting the minhag some people still have it, I think most people don't, that one person says the Haggadah and everyone else is listening, so that's why the Rambam says ve-omer hakorei. Again for those where everyone says the Haggadah it means that according to the Rambam everyone says Mah Nishtanah. De-hainu, it's not the child's question, rather it's our question as part of saying the Haggadah because there is a din. The Mechilta says that it's not, it's not just דברת תורה בלשון הווה. When the Torah presents והיה כי ישאלך בנך מחר לאמר, that it's not just sort of דברת תורה בלשון הווה, but rather there's a din that sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim is supposed to be told in a question-answer format. So the Mechilta says if a person would be making a Seder alone, so he'd ask himself the he'd ask himself. There's a din that sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim should be in a question-answer format. So that's so that's why the Rambam says, that's what the peshat in Mah Nishtanah is, that that we're asking the questions ourselves for that din of question-answer format. What does the ben ask? The ben asks whatever on his whatever's on his mind to ask. Earlier right before the Rambam has mezigas kos sheini and Mah Nishtanah, so the Rambam talks about Karpas.

מתחיל ומברך בורא פרי האדמה ולוקח ירק ומטבל בחרוסת ואוכל כזית הוא וכל המסובין עמו כל אחד ואחד אינו אוכל פחות מכזית ואחר כך עוקרין השולחן מלפני קורא ההגדה לבדו.

So the pashta says that both of these things are heker la-tinokos. Right? The terei tivulei, I think what we had occasion to look at the Gemara in קוף יוד דלת עמוד בית is heker la-tinokos as is as is the akiras ha-shulchan. So the shaylah is that the Rambam takes pains to emphasize that everyone should eat Karpas, ma she-ein ken, the akiras ha-shulchan is only לפני קורא ההגדה לבדו. Hagam that everyone had their own little shulchan so we could have had the akiras ha-shulchan in front of everyone, but no. So why is that? Okay. Then the other thing which is noteworthy in the Rambam is that the Rambam says that you require a ke-zayis, right? כל אחד ואחד אינו אוכל פחות מכזית. Every Rishon holds that since the whole thing is mishum heker, if the when you have a mitzvah achilah and the Hagahot Maimoniot: כזית זה איני יודע מה טיבו. Where did the Rambam get ke-zayis from?

בשלמא מרור דאכילה כתיב ביה אין אכילה פחות מכזית אלא טיבול זה הראשון אינו אלא להשמיע התינוק שישאל ובכל דהו סגי שהרי ברכה כזאת אינה צריכה שיעור ויכול לברך בורא פרי האדמה על כל שהוא.

So the Hagahot Maimoniot actually says a very, very sevara. Hagahot Maimoniot says

וסבורני שטעות סופר הוא שכתבו בכאן מה שהיה ראוי להיות כתוב לקמן אכל ומטבל בחרוסת דגבי מרור.

He says really the lashon of but so the Rambam writes like this:

מתחיל ומברך בורא פרי האדמה ולוקח ירק ומטבל אותו בחרוסת.

So that same metabel be-charoses you find those same words le-gabi maror. So the Hagahot Maimoniot says that he thinks it's a taas sofer that the line כל אחד ואחד אינו אוכל פחות מכזית is le-gabi le-gabi maror. So Rav Zachs zikhrono livrakha said it's very, very hard to understand this Hagahot Maimoniot. By maror there's no havah amina that only the baal ha-bayis is going to eat maror whatever else is going to על ידי שומע כעונה with your I'll eat my own romaine I'll be yotzei shomeia ke-oneh with your horseradish. What's the havah amina that one person is going to eat and everyone else is going to everyone else is going to cheer him on? Obviously everyone has to eat. By Karpas so there since it's mishum heker la-tinokos precisely because of Hagahot Maimoniot's kasha that that's what shows the Rambam. Has to be taka talking likhora about karpas because the Rambam clearly is dismissing a hava amina that it would only be the ba'al habayis who's going to eat the karpas. So likhora it's clear that the Rambam taka said it by karpas. And that's what the... I don't think the Franco has any manuscript basis for the Hagahos Maimoniyos's suggestion. Okay, so we have those two questions: A) Why is karpas everyone and Akiras Hashulchan is Kohein Gadol? And B) The Hagahos Maimoniyos's question, where did the Rambam get a shiur kezayis which is for mitzvas achila? Okay. So itochein as follows, I don't know, ayin sham. Another thing which is done mishum heker for the tinokos, so the Gemara says here, did we get up to that? No, we didn't get up to that. On the bottom of קח עמוד ב, so the Gemara has as follows:

תנו רבנן הכל חייבין בארבע כוסות הללו אחד אנשים ואחד נשים ואחד תינוקות אמר רבי יהודה וכי מה תועלת יש לתינוקות ביין אלא מחלקין להם קליות ואגוזים כדי שלא ישנו וישאלו. אמרו עליו על רבי עקיבא שהיה מחלק קליות ואגוזים לתינוקות בערב פסח כדי שלא ישנו וישאלו.

So you give them kloyos ve'egozim. Why? To stimulate them, to keep them awake, so that kedei sheyishalu. So here too there's a kedei sheyishalu. So your association with kloyos ve'egozim is, that's also how we mekayem in general on Yom Tov mitzvas simcha for ktanim. Right? Anashim beraui lahem, nashim beraui lahen, we discussed this yesterday in a different context, and ktanim beraui lahen. So keitzad? That anashim is basar ve'yayin, nashim is bgadim, and what's ktanim? Is מחלק להם קליות ואגוזים. So itochein that the Rambam learned pshat as follows, that within kedei sheyishalu, I'm not sure if this is a finished product, but within the kedei sheyishalu, apparently Chazal had two types of kedei sheyishalu. Some of the kedei sheyishalus is not just that you're doing something unusual, out of the ordinary, but you're doing something which is also intrinsically meaningful. It's unusual, it's out of the ordinary that you're doing it now, but you're doing something which is intrinsically meaningful. By being mechallek kloyos ve'egozim, so ordinarily mishum simchas Yom Tov they would be distributed during the day. And I think most can't even... they give out during the day and not at night. So that's taka in hilchos Yom Tov in the Rambam it sounds like that. You would give it out during the day, you wouldn't give it out at night. So vas epis all of a sudden tonight where we're being mechallek kloyos ve'egozim? So that's taka, it's a heker, it's כדי שלא ישנו וישאלו, but it's also something which is intrinsically meaningful in the sense that there's a kiyum simcha associated with it. Mashe'ein kein apparently the Akiras Hashulchan, ayin lov about this part, not sure about this. The Akiras Hashulchan isn't so much intrinsically meaningful. How Chazal decided on that heker, I don't know, but bechachmasam they did. But that's stam mishum heker. If it's stam mishum heker, so that's where the Rambam... stam mishum heker. Now, so the sha'ala is what about karpas? So karpas is more similar to מחלק להם קליות ואגוזים, that the timing is the heker. But it's something which also you can turn around and say: You know why we're giving you kloyos ve'egozim? To celebrate Yetzias Mitzrayim because tonight Hakadosh Baruch Hu took us out of Mitzrayim. So what's the karpas? So itochein that the Rambam learns pshat over here that there's a difference between the karpas and Akiras Hashulchan. Akiras Hashulchan is taka just something unusual, kedei sheyishalu. So it's enough that the Kohein Gadol does it. Mashe'ein kein the karpas is matbilin, maybe that's a type of derech cheirus, that that to be matbil and before the meal, there's a shtikel derech cheirus associated with that. So that already once it... then the takkana is to do something which is intrinsically meaningful for the kedei sheyishalu. If that's the case, so then you're going to treat it as a mitzvas achila and you're going to insist on כל אחד ואחד אין אוכל פחות מכשיעור. So we generally have the minhag that we eat less than a kazayis. I think from Reb Shlomo Zalman they quote the following he'arah halacha l'maiseh. Let's say it happens sometimes a person forgets and makes the bracha of al netilas yadayim by Urchatz. So then Reb Shlomo Zalman says the person bedavka should eat a kazayis. Because the emes is it's a shayla whether or not biklal is there even assuming that there's a chiyuv netilas yadayim for davar shetibulo bemashkeh, is there really a chiyuv netilas yadayim when it's pachos mikazayis? Even by bread it's not. So that's what Reb Shlomo Zalman says in the event that a person should forget and make the bracha by Urchatz, so then he should bedavka eat a kazayis. Mishna Berura has his suggestion in Biur Halacha. He says it's also not so clear why having done a netilas yadayim by Urchatz why it should be so clear that we definitely need another netilas yadayim for Rachtza, so clear ad k'dei kach that we make a bracha. Maybe a person was masiach da'as, but is it so clear that he's really chayav netilas yadayim again? So I think in Biur Halacha he has a suggestion that maybe a person should touch his shoes or something before Rachtza so that there's no shayla of a bracha levatala by the netilas yadayim of Rachtza. Mishna Berura quotes from the Chayei Adam that the Chayei Adam says, the whole thing's from the Chayei Adam, the first part's from the Pri Megadim, that the Mishna Berura quotes that before Kiddush, so mitzvos tzarich kavana, so a person should be mechaven for both mitzvas Kiddush as well of the mitzva of arba kosos. And then before Ha Lachma Anya, then a person should be mechaven for מצות סיפור יציאת מצרים. Ad kan dvarav. The Rav zichrono livracha used to say, commenting on the Gemara that we mentioned yesterday,

ארבע כסי תקנו רבנן כל חד וחד נעביד ביה מצוה.

So what does that mean? So Chazal introduced daled kosos. Why did they introduce daled kosos? Derech cheirus. Fine. So once we have daled kosos let's see if we can eichshehu find some mitzvah to associate with each of the daled kosos. The Rav says no, that's not what it means. It means that each of the mitzvos which we associate with a cos has to do with sippur yetzias Mitzrayim. It's not stam that artificially we're looking to associate a mitzvah. Okay, we have four kosos, what are we going to do with four kosos? We'll use one for benching, we'll use one for Kiddush. No, each of these has to do with sippur yetzias Mitzrayim. That's what the Rav used to say, that leil tes-vov, because of the zeicher l'yetzias Mitzrayim in the Kiddush and the אשר הוצאתנו מארץ מצרים ופדיתנו מבית עבדים in benching become a part of the sippur yetzias Mitzrayim. It's not just the regular matbeia ha'bracha of Kiddush and benching, but it rather becomes a part of the sippur yetzias Mitzrayim. So mistama according to the Rav, one should have the kavana of the Chayei Adam's kavana to לצאת ידי סיפור יציאת מצרים, a person should be mechaven that already before Kiddush, not just before Maggid, but already before Kiddush. By the Ben Rasha, the Beis HaLevi has his very famous and beautiful he'arah that we don't seem to give the Torah's answer to the Ben Rasha. Right? In Parshas Bo... והיה כי יאמרו אליכם בניכם מה העבודה הזאת לכם, so the next posuk is

ואמרתם זבח פסח הוא להשם אשר פסח על בתי בני ישראל במצרים.

So we don't say anything about that to the Ben Rasha. So how come? So he answers very beautifully. If you take a look again at each of the psukim for the arba'ah banim, so one of them doesn't have a question at all, right?

והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא לאמר בעבור זה עשה השם לי בצאתי ממצרים,

so that's what Chazal says is the She'eino yodeia lish'ol. It's not in response to anything that the other two is והיה כי ישאלך בנך לאמר מה זאת, or והיה, how's the posuk in Va'eschanan? מה העדות והחוקים והמשפטים, והיה, what's the lashon of the posuk in Va'eschanan? כי ישאלך בנך מחר לאמר מה העדות והחוקים, also Ki yishalcha bincha, also Ki yishalcha bincha. So the Beis Halevi is medayek two things. By והיה כי יאמרו אליכם בניכם מה העבודה הזאת לכם, so there's two different... Vehaya... and how's the posuk in Parshas Bo by the Ben Rasha, what's the posuk? In Parshas Bo,

והיה כי יאמרו אליכם בניכם מה העבודה הזאת לכם, והיה כי יאמרו אליכם בניכם מה העבודה הזאת לכם.

So by the other two it's Vehaya ki yishalcha. It's a question. Here it's והיה כי יאמרו אליכם בניכם, so it's not really a question, meaning it's some kind of cynical expression of rejection or skepticism. Not a question, it's כי יאמרו אליכם בניכם. And what's more, that's why the next posuk ואמרתם, it's not in the other cases the Torah says Ve'amarta eilav or Ve'amartem eilav. The Torah takeh says you're answering. He's asking a sincere question, answer. But והיה כי יאמרו אליכם בניכם, they're not asking. They're answering, they're saying, they're just being cynical and rejecting with again a rhetorical cynical statement. So then you don't answer them. So the Ve'amartem Zevach Pesach is for yourself, is to be mechazek yourself. But for them, it's takeh אף אתה הקהה את שיניו. Very very beautiful in the psukim. How come we hit the rasha over the head for מה העבודה הזאת לכם and the chacham gets away with אשר צוה השם אלקינו אתכם? Okay, so a lot of the steam of that question is already dissipated by the Beis Halevi's because one's a question, one's just Ki yomru. But even so, why does the chacham, why does the chacham say eschem? Why doesn't he say osanu? Why isn't he equally guilty of מוציא עצמו מן הכלל? So lechora the pshat is like this. In saying eschem as opposed to osanu, it can mean one of two things. It takeh could mean disassociating. These are your mitzvos, not my mitzvos. Or what it could mean is a sense of humility and being machnia oneself to the messorah. I recognize that the child says to the father, I recognize that you're one generation closer to Ma'amad Har Sinai and that you know better what the tzivui is than I do. So how do you know which the child means? So the fact that he says אשר צוה השם אלקינו, if he would have said Hashem Elokeichem, okay, so then lechora that would be very telling that he's disassociating himself. But once it's אשר צוה השם אלקינו, so then the eschem is Davar halomed me'inyano, contextually is rather an expression again of humility and hachna'ah to messorah rather than being מוציא עצמו מן הכלל. Meshech Chochmah has, I forget exactly how it goes, let's look it up, in the drashah of תלמוד לומר בעבור זה, right?

יאמר מהיום יכול מבעוד יום תלמוד לומר בעבור זה. לא אמרתי אלא בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך,

so why didn't, why didn't the Tanna say

לא אמרתי אלא בשעה שיש פסח מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך?

Or why does he... again, the point of the drasha is to say we're establishing when מצות סיפור יציאת מצרים is. So vos epes that it's בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך, should have been בשעה שיש פסח מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך. So the Meshech Chochma says no, so meduyak here that apparently the Bavli says bizman hagalus, bizman hachurban, that עשה השם לי בצאתי ממצרים that again Hakadosh Baruch Hu wanted to see that we would remain faithful and firm in our emuna and our observance even in the time of churban, even in the time of hester, I don't know exactly how he says it.

מתחילה עובדי עבודה זרה היו אבותינו ועכשיו קרבנו המקום ברוך הוא לעבודתו שנאמר ויאמר יהושע אל כל העם כה אמר השם אלוקי ישראל בעבר הנהר ישבו אבותיכם מעולם תרח אבי אברהם ואבי נחור ויעבדו אלוהים אחרים ואקח את אביכם את אברהם מעבר הנהר ואולך אותו בכל ארץ כנען וארבה את זרעו ואתן לו את יצחק ואתן ליצחק את יעקב ואת עשו ואתן לעשו את הר שעיר לרשת אותו ויעקב ובניו ירדו מצרים.

OK, so this is Rav's maschil bignus, right? So why are we going back to yemei Terach? Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim, so the maschil bignus should be the gnus of the sojourn in Mitzrayim, it shouldn't go all the way back to Terach. How does Terach come into the picture here? And ein hachi nami, the emes is as the Rambam tells us in פרק א הלכות עבודה זרה that in Mitzrayim, with the exception of Shevet Levi, kimat everyone else became ovdei avoda zara, right? We know the famous medrash by Krias Yam Suf, the malachim complained to Hakadosh Baruch Hu הללו עובדי עבודה זרה והללו עובדי עבודה זרה. Rambam says כמעט נכרת העיקר הזה ששתל אברהם אבינו or something like that. So it's... so we easily... that the gnus did exist in Mitzrayim. So the gnus of ovdei avoda zara, so why do we trace it back, how does that pertain to Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim? Why are we focusing on Terach? Since when... most of us when we list our yichus and we trace ourselves back, we sort of stop with Avraham Avinu. We don't necessarily look back to to claim Terach as a zeide. So vos epes over here, all of a sudden, all of a sudden Terach is in the picture. So in the Arami oveid avi, so one of the phrases we have in the pasuk is vayehi sham legoy. So the Torah emphasizes that what happened in Mitzrayim is that we became a nation. Became a nation. Not just an extended family, a clan, but we emerged as a nation. Again, which became the Am Hanivchar,

בצאת ישראל ממצרים בית יעקב מעם לועז היתה יהודה לקדשו ישראל ממשלותיו,

right? We emerged through Yetzias Mitzrayim at Ma'amad Har Sinai

בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדון את האלקים על ההר הזה,

we emerged as an Am Hanivchar. So on one level you see from the Chumash that the story of Yetzias Mitzrayim is the story of the emergence of the Am Hanivchar. So if that's what Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim is, so then the maschil bignus is who were the progenitors of the Am Hanivchar. The shvach is, according to the printed text in the Rambam, Frankel doesn't print that, according to the printed text in the Rambam, the Rambam even writes mefurash that the shvach is hivdilanu meiha'ummos. Even if you don't have that word, it means that anyway, even if you don't have that word. The shvach is that we become the Am Hanivchar. If that's the shvach and if that's what Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim is, so then the proper... The progenitors of this nation, the progenitors of this nation were ovdei avodah zarah. So for that, takka, we'll look at Terach also, because if it's for the purpose of, again, of the gnus, of looking at who the progenitors of what later became the am hanivchar, so then we trace it back to Terach, the father of Avraham Avinu.

והיא שעמדה לאבותינו ולנו שלא אחד בלבד עמד עלינו אלא שבכל דור ודור עומדים עלינו לכלותינו והקדוש ברוך הוא מצילנו מידם.

There's a pshat, I believe from the Netziv and the Beis HaLevi. I think they both say the same on V'hi she'omda. So what's the 'he'? What's the antecedent of 'he'? So peshitus is you would say the havtacha, right? That Hakadosh Baruch Hu's havtacha is what has sustained it, hi she'omda. Sustained us, והיא שעמדה לאבותינו ולנו. Again, the previous paragraph is ברוך שומר הבטחתו לישראל ברוך הוא. So I believe it's the Netziv and the Beis HaLevi who say that the pshat is like this. That, I don't know if they say exclusively the 'he', but certainly part, maybe even exclusively the 'he', is not only the havtacha, but rather the antisemitism. And again, the avi avos of the antisemitism is in Mitzrayim. That the antisemitism, when necessary, is what keeps us Jewish. Is what when we, when we, rachmana litzlan, look to assimilate and shed our identity, so it's the והיא שעמדה לאבותינו ולנו throughout all the persecutions, a Jew couldn't forget he was Jewish even if he wanted to. Then we begin with the parsha of Arami oveid avi. Why do we darshan davka the parsha of Arami oveid avi? Again, that we do it is from the Mishna. So the Or Sameiach has a little ha'ara where he says that he thinks Chazal saw a remez to that in the drasha of lechem oni, לחם שעונין עליו דברים, that it's a hint to the parsha which begins וענית ואמרת לפני ה' אלקיך, Arami oveid avi. And that's what Rav Simcha suggests. That lechem oni means you say the Haggada over the matzah. But lechem oni, לחם שעונין עליו דברים, that Chazal saw in that a remez to the parsha which is introduced by וענית ואמרת לפני ה' אלקיך, Arami oveid avi. The Rav zecher tzaddik livracha used to say that again, that what seems to be the disadvantage of Arami oveid avi and the advantage of שמות וארא בא בשלח is really why we bedafka opt for Arami oveid avi. It would seem that שמות וארא בא בשלח is much more detailed, so really we should learn the beginning of Sefer Shemos instead of a few cryptic psukim in Sefer Devarim. So Rav says no, he had a sense that since the whole Seder is a night of mesora, of Vehigadta l'vincha, it's a night of mesora, so bedafka we want to choose the text where we need the תורה שבעל פה, where we need the drashos of the Sifri in order to appreciate what the psukim are telling us. We bedafka want to be dependent upon the תורה שבעל פה explication rather than just dealing with the Torah she'bichsav. Then perhaps a third possible explanation would be the following. I think we discussed this already, just hazering for a minute. A third possible interpretation would be as follows. Throughout the Haggada we have a very strong emphasis... ה' אלהינו למועדים ולרגלים אחרים. All of Nirtza, but the major thrust of Nirtza is the yearning for the Beis Hamikdash. I think we mentioned the Gaon's interpretation of the phrases in

לפיכך אנחנו חייבים להודות להלל. להוציאנו מעבדות לחירות משעבוד לגאולה מיגון לשמחה מאבל ליום טוב מאפילה לאור גדול

are not different elements of Galus Mitzrayim, but rather successive stages, beginning with me'avdus l'cherus was Mitzrayim, culminating with me'afelah l'or gadol was from the time of the Shoftim, b'mei Dovid u'Shlomo, the or gadol representing the Beis Hamikdash. So then we're mamash and then certainly in the Dayeinu, and על אחת כמה וכמה, piyutim that we have, we also trace subsequent Jewish history until binyan beis habechirah. Why? Because the binyan beis habechirah was the culmination of Yetzias Mitzrayim. The culmination, the point of Yetzias Mitzrayim was שלח נא ביד תשלח Moshe Rabbeinu tells Hakadosh Baruch Hu, אין סופי להכניסם לארץ ישראל. So what's the point of my taking them out of Mitzrayim? Because what was Moshe Rabbeinu's tayna? Moshe Rabbeinu's tayna was that again, what Yetzias Mitzrayim is not going to be culminated until Eretz Yisrael with the binyan beis habechirah. If I'm not going to do that, so give the shlichus to someone who can carry out the entire shlichus. In Az Yashir, so it concludes with מקדש ה' כוננו ידיך, because that's going to be the final realization of Yetzias Mitzrayim. The pasuk in Melachim we mentioned, where the pasuk dates when Shlomo Hamelech builds the Beis Hamikdash, how many years it's been, it's 480 years, whatever, since Yetzias Mitzrayim. So that being the case, so be'emes, that's what the parsha of Arami Oveid Avi does. The parsha of Arami Oveid Avi highlights that connection, because the beginning of the story is vayered Mitzrayma and the end of the story is ויביאנו אל המקום הזה. I, we don't say that pasuk. So that's what we mentioned before, one other difference between נוסח ההגדה שנהגו בו ישראל בזמן הגלות כך הוא is that Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman and the Rav both say that bizman haMikdash they used to say the pasuk as part of Arami Oveid Avi of ויביאנו אל המקום הזה. In the Sifrei, so we have the drasha of vayered Mitzrayma, אנוס על פי הדיבור. That Yaakov Avinu went down to Mitzrayim, it was אנוס על פי הדיבור. What does it mean אנוס על פי הדיבור? Yaakov Avinu didn't do mitzvos b'simcha? He didn't do mitzvos... what do you mean he was אנוס על פי הדיבור? Hakadosh Baruch Hu told him to go down and he should... so yitachen that what onus means in this context, not coerced, but what onus means in this context is the following. Let's say a person can have a reason to miss a Seder. A person can have a reason to miss a Seder, a legitimate, compelling reason to miss a Seder. Okay, so he can have either of two attitudes. His attitude can be: okay, since it's a compelling reason, so this is my avodah, this is my mitzvah. Or his attitude can be: ach, a breath of fresh air! I finally have a good excuse and I don't have to have a guilty conscience about missing a Seder, I can go and have a good time and don't have to have any guilty conscience. And can give other, obviously many other examples of this. So אנוס על פי הדיבור means the same thing. So a person living in Eretz Yisrael, so a person stam azoi is not supposed to go out to chutz la'aretz l'tayel. So it could be, oh, so Yaakov Avinu could have had a reaction: oh, so okay, so now I have... I can go for Pesach and I can go see the pyramids in Pesach and I have a heter, so I can go and he can enjoy. No, אנוס על פי הדיבור means that he was going אך ורק על פי הדיבור, that's what onus, what the emphasis of onus means. He's going אך ורק על פי הדיבור. The pasuk Vayare'u osanu hamitzrim what? וירעו אותנו המצרים ויענונו. So in parshas Shmos you have the pasuk that

מאז באתי אל פרעה לדבר בשמך הרע לעם הזה והצל לא הצלת את עמך.

So there it's hera with a lamed right? It's the dative. Here it's vayare'u osanu, the accusative. Right? It's not vayare'u lonu, it's vayare'u osanu. So what's pshat? What's the difference between whether it's hera la'am hazeh with the lamed right? To the dative? Or whether it's vayare'u osanu without the preposition, just the accusative? I can remind you that the Rav said on this that hera la'am hazeh means to do bad to someone. You beat a person up, that's hera la'am hazeh. You enslave them in inhumane conditions, you kill them, that's hera la'am hazeh. You make someone bad, that because of the pernicious influence that you exert, because of the terrible conditions that exist, so let's say in the camps, so people, so the Kedoshim who suffered, who were killed, so that was a bechina of hera la'am hazeh. Anyone who the very very few, but one of those very very very few who cooperated with the Nazis and who would moser on a fellow Jew, that's vayare'u osanu. That's where the conditions make the people bad. I think he said that, I'm not positive but I think, I think he said that, that's the pshat of vayare'u osanu. That again that we became of the avoda zara in Mitzrayim, that it took its toll on us spiritually, not just physically. Just one last he'ara here so ונצעק אל ה' אלוהי אבותינו k'mo shene'emar

ויהי בימים הרבים ההם וימת מלך מצרים ויאנחו בני ישראל מן העבודה ויזעקו ותעל שועתם אל האלהים מן העבודה.

So if you take a look at the Ramban on that pasuk in Shmos on the ויאנחו בני ישראל מן העבודה ויזעקו, it's very the lashon is kedarkah of the Ramban, very nuanced. The way the Rav read that Ramban, the vaye'anchu and the vayizaku was a groan, was a sigh, and was a ze'akah of pain, and Hakadosh Baruch Hu berachamav took that as tefilla. Hakadosh Baruch Hu was misyaches to that as tefilla. But it was really again just a cry of intense pain. And the Rav used to juxtapose that when reading the Rambam at at the beginning of hilchos Chanukah, the Rambam gives the description of Chanukah, ללחוצם לחץ גדול עד שריחם עליהם. So the Rav used to say something missing from the Rambam's description, there's no mention of tefilla in Chanukah. And in that context he would mention this Ramban that the mashma'us in the Ramban is that the vayizaku Hakadosh Baruch Hu took as tefilla. ונצעק אל ה' אלוהי אבותינו, that's how Hakadosh Baruch Hu interpreted it. The way Hakadosh Baruch Hu interpreted it. משל למה הדבר דומה when a baby cries, so I don't know if you can necessarily say that this newborn is consciously thinking mommy please come and take care of me. He's crying, but avada the mother takes that as a call to her. She doesn't just see the baby's crying, that she takes that as a call to her. So such a bechina that's how the Rav understood the Ramban on this pasuk that the ונצעק אל ה' אלוהי אבותינו was really even though it's just vayizaku, even though the pasuk just describes it as vayizaku, but Hakadosh Baruch Hu took it as tefilla. Hakadosh Baruch Hu took it as tefillah and that's

ויוציאנו ה' ממצרים לא על ידי מלאך ולא על ידי שרף ולא על ידי שליח אלא הקדוש ברוך הוא בכבודו ובעצמו.

Not through a malach, not through a saraf, and not through a shaliach, but Hakadosh Baruch Hu Himself in His kavod. This yad chazakah and zroah netuyah that the pasuk mentions, these are the nissim that were lemala min hateva. As the mefarshim say, the geulah from Mitzrayim was a geulah that had to happen at that exact rega because Bnei Yisrael had reached the mem-tet shaarei tumah. It was milmaalah le-matah. Hakadosh Baruch Hu didn't wait for us to be raui, He didn't wait for us to be zocheh, but He acted with a yad chazakah to bring about the yeshuah. This is the bechinah of Vayotzi'anu Hashem mi-Mitzrayim, that even in the deepest galus, Hashem is there to pull us out.