Vol 32.06 - Erev Pesach              Spanish French Audio  Video

Hebrew Text:

Page36   Page37   Page38   Page39   Page40   Page41   Page42   Page43

Summary:


The reason that the conclusion of the “Seder Korban Pesach” is: “and if the Pesach (offering) is found to be treifa (unfit), he does not fulfill (his obligation) until he brings another”.

The difference between the wording of the Alter Rebbe in his Siddur before the section  “Seder Korban Pesach” to that of the Shaloh and the Siddur Arizal.

Three boundaries in (the concept of):  “'And let our lips replace the (sacrificial) bulls' ('U'neshalma Parim Sefaseinu  - Hoshea 14:3). And the innovation in this with the recital of “Seder Korban Pesach (8)
 

Translation:

1. In the “Seder Korban Pesach” (Order of the Korban Pesach) that the Alter Rebbe brings in his Siddur, he writes that one should recite it on Erev Pesach, after the Minchah prayer (which is according to the text in Sefer “Seder HaYom”, and is cited in the Shaloh, and the Siddur of the Arizal).

The Alter Rebbe concludes:

“If the Pesach offering was found to be Treifah/unfit (טריפה), one did not fulfill his obligation until he brings another one.”

One must understand:

In the aforementioned “Seder Korban Pesach”, not all the details of its offering are mentioned, and especially things that are not usual, and extent in the whole year. Therefore, why does the Alter Rebbe cite this detail, “If the Pesach offering was found to be Treifah one did not fulfill his obligation until he brings another one etc.”?

It is even more problematic:

This law

(“If the Pesach offering was found to be unfit (טריפה), one did not fulfill his obligation until he brings another one”)

happens immediately after slaughtering.

(Like Rambam’s wording:

“When a person slaughters his Paschal sacrifice and it is discovered to have a disqualifying physical blemish or it is Treifah, he may slaughter another one.”

And it is not so “straightforward” (חלק) that it should be arranged here at the end of all the subject -especially since this is seemingly, not a positive conclusion - after the entire order of its offering - and after the details of cleansing the Courtyard (העזרה)?

2. One could answer this by prefacing, the precise wording of the Alter Rebbe’s Siddur there, before the “Seder Korban Pesach”:

The Alter Rebbe writes:

"’We offer the words of our lips in place of the sacrifice of bullocks’. The Minchah prayer is instead of the daily afternoon offering, and in the time of the Beit HaMikdash, the Pesach offering was sacrificed after the daily afternoon offering. Thus, it is appropriate to study the order of the Pesach offering after Minchah, and to say the following:”

In the Shaloh (and it is also cited in the Siddur of the Arizal), the wording is:

"’We offer the words of our lips in place of the sacrifice of bullocks’. Therefore, the Men of the Great Assembly enacted the prayer in place of the daily offerings, and the Minchah prayer corresponds to the daily afternoon offering. In the time of the Beit HaMikdash, the Pesach offering was sacrificed after the daily afternoon offering. Thus, in order to offer the words of our lips in place of the sacrifice of bullocks, it is appropriate to study the order of the Pesach offering after the Minchah prayer”.

However, the Alter Rebbe omits the words:

"Therefore, the Men of the Great Assembly enacted the prayer in place of the daily offerings. . Thus, in order to offer the words of our lips in place of the sacrifice of bullocks”

One could say that this is not just for conciseness, but rather that it is a change in the subject (בחוכן).

With these words, the Shaloh emphasizes that the reason for the recital of the Seder Korban Pesach is similar to the aspect of “prayer is in place of the daily offerings”, “in order that we offer the words of our lips in place of the sacrifice of bullocks”.

However, seemingly these two aspects:

  • “Prayer is in place of the daily offerings”, and
  • Recital of the order of the Korban, is in place of its offering -

are two different laws:

  • The explanation of “prayer is in place of the daily offerings” (that the Men of the Great Assembly enacted) is that the Sages enacted the deed (the recital) of the prayer in the place of the offering of the Tamid.

(and the recital of the Parsha of the Tamid, and so forth, before the prayer, is a Minhag that “all Yidden are accustomed (in)”

  • Whereas the recital of the Parsha of the Korbanot in place of their offering, is derived from the verse. “This is the law of the sin offering” (Lev. 6:18), and “This is the law of the guilt offering” (Lev. 7:1) etc. Like the statement of the Sages at the end of Tractate Menachot:

“Anyone who engages in studying the law of the Olah offering is ascribed as though he sacrificed an Olah offering, and anyone who engages in studying the law of a Sin-offering is ascribed as though he sacrificed a Sin offering, and anyone who engages in studying the law of a Guilt-offering is ascribed as though he sacrificed a Guilt offering”.

According to this, one could say that this is the Alter Rebbe’s reason for changing from the Shaloh‘s wording,

(and the omission of the words, “Therefore . .enacted the prayer in place of the daily offerings, . . and in order to offer the words of our lips in place of the sacrifice of bullocks”)

For the reason that he cites here the aspect of,

“the Minchah prayer is instead of the daily afternoon offering”

is not in order to equate the essence of the Minchah prayer to the essence of the recital of the Seder Korban Pesach (that both of them are in the place of the Korban).

Rather it is just as a reason for the establishment of the time of reciting the Seder Korban Pesach. For since the Pesach was sacrificed after the daily afternoon offering, therefore,

“it is appropriate to study the order of the Pesach offering after the Minchah prayer”

(which is “in place of the daily afternoon offering”).

However, according to this one must understand the reason of the Shaloh. For it appears from his wording (as aforementioned) that the recital of the Seder Korban Pesach is the same aspect as “prayer was enacted in place of the daily offerings” (in order, “to offer the words of our lips in place of the sacrifice of bullocks”).

3. One could say the explanation of this is:

In the aspect of, “We offer the words of our lips in place of the sacrifice of bullocks”- namely, that the recital is in place of the Korban - we find many manners and boundaries:

  1. The recital of the Parshiot of the Korbanot in the Written Torah atones in the place of the Korban – as the Sages state in Tractate Taanit and Megillah,

“It is written: “And he said . . by what shall I know that I shall inherit it?” (Gen.15:8). Avraham said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, perhaps the Jewish people will sin before You, and You will do to them . . G-d said to him: No, I will not do that . . Take Me a heifer of three years old. .(Avraham said before Him) ‘this works out well when the Temple is standing, but when the Temple will no longer be standing, what will become of them?’ G-d said to him: I have already established for them the order of offerings. Whenever they read those portions, I will deem it as if they sacrificed an offering before Me, and I will pardon them for all of their iniquities.”

  1. The Torah study (and especially in the laws of the Korbanot) is like the offering of the Korban – as the aforementioned Sages state (at the end of Tractate Menachot):

“These are Torah scholars, who engage in Torah study (G-d says:) I ascribe them credit as though they burn and present offerings to My name. . Anyone who engages in studying the law of a Sin-offering is ascribed as though he sacrificed etc.”

  1. That prayers were enacted in the place of Korbanot.

One could say that these are three different boundaries:

  1. The recital of the order of the Korbanot in the Written Torah is in the place of the Korban – in other words, to the aspect of the result (the “outcome” (נפעל)) that through the recital of the Parsha of the Korban, in the Written Torah, G-d atones for Yidden as he would atone for them through the Korbanot.
  2. The Torah study (of the Oral Torah) and especially in the Halachot of the Service and the Korbanot, is considered like the sacrifice and offering (הקרבה והקטרה) – in other words (not just with regard to the outcome, but rather) also regarding the effect of the sacrifice and offering. It is as if there is the deed of the offering.

However, although the study is as if there is the deed of the offering, this is just that it is considered as if the person (the Gavra) did a deed of the sacrifice and offering. However, this is not relevant to the object (החפצא), for there is no semblance of an object of a Korban.

  1. However, regarding prayers were enacted in place of Korbanot – one could say that this is relevant to the object of the offering. For not only does the person get reward or atonement through the offering of the Korban (the result of the Korban) or the quality that is produced in the person through the deed of the offering. But rather, the deed of the prayer, is actually considered like the act of the Korban – for there is the object of “Korban”. Therefore, there are many conditions placed upon one who prays, similar to the many conditions of one who offers a Korban:

“One must therefore take care that it is similar to a Korban – that it (be recited) with devout intent. No other thought may be joined with it, just as (an inappropriate) thought can disqualify a sacrifice. It should (be recited) while standing, just as service (in the Beit HaMikdash was performed while standing). One should have a fixed place (for prayer), just as each of the sacrifices had a fixed place for its slaughter and for the sprinkling of its blood. There should not be anything interposing between the worshiper and the wall (in front of him), in resemblance to a sacrifice which is disqualified if anything intervenes between (its blood) and the vessel (in which the blood is received) . . It is appropriate to have fine clothes set aside for prayer, (recalling) the priestly garments etc.”

4. Regarding the recital of the “Seder Korban Pesach”, on Erev Pesach, we find an innovation that we do not similarly find with other Torah aspects where it states,

“Anyone who engages . . is as if he sacrificed etc.”

For we do not recite the Parsha of the Korban Pesach (as it is verbatim) in the Written Torah,

(like we recite the Parsha of the Tamid or the Parsha of the Korbanot, and so forth (like that of Tractate Taanit and Megillah)

Nor do we engage in its Halachot in the Oral Torah, 

(similar to the Mishnah of Eizehu Mekoman (and like that of Menachot) and so forth) –

rather we actually tell (מספרים) the actual order of its offering.

One could say that this is because the engaging in the Seder Korban Pesach is exactly like the act of the offering of the Korban Pesach, similar to that which it is prayer through the act of the prayer.

With this, the wording in the Sefer Seder HaYom, that is written after the text of the “Seder Korban Pesach”

(and as it is cited in the Shaloh and the Siddur of the Arizal, and the Siddur of the Alter Rebbe)

is answered.

The Sefer Seder HaYom writes:

“This is the aspect very briefly. The G-d-fearing person who is in awe of G-d’s word should recite it in its proper time, so that its recital should be regarded in place of its offering. One should be concerned about the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash, and plead before G-d, the Creator of the universe, that He rebuild it speedily in our days; Amen”.

From the precise wording,

“The G-d-fearing person who is in awe of G-d’s word (must) recite it in its proper time, so that its recital should be regarded in place of its offering”,

it implies that the reason we recite the Seder Korban Pesach after the Minchah prayer, is not just because this is the time of the offering of the Pesach,

(like the implication of the words that he writes before the Seder Korban Pesach)

but rather, that when the recital is at its time- “its recital should be regarded in place of its offering”.

This seemingly requires explanation:

For one of the differences between the two laws of,

  • “Prayer was enacted in place of the daily offerings” and
  • Recital of the Parsha (and the study of the Halachot) of the Korbanot is in place of their offerings,

is that

  • Prayer must specifically be in the time of the daily Tamid offerings.
  • Whereas, the study of the section and the Halachot of the Korban in the place of its offering, is not connected with the time of the obligation of the offering.

(as is understood from the continuation of the Talmud’s section (הסוגיא) at the end of Tractate Menachot regarding,

“Anyone who engages . . is as if he sacrificed etc.”

As it states before this, expressly, on the verse,

“A Song of Ascents, Behold, bless the Lord, all you servants of the Lord, who stand in the House of the Lord at night” (Psalms 134:1). What is the meaning of “at night,” (given that the Temple service is not performed at night and all the offerings must be sacrificed during the daytime?) R’ Yochanan says: These are Torah scholars, who engage in Torah study at night. The verse ascribes them credit as though they engage in the Temple service.”

Although the Tur writes that the Parsha of the Korbanot,

“are better to be recited in the day, for they are in place of the offering of the Korban whose time is in the day”

(and according Torah many opinions, one must recite it standing)

Nevertheless,  

  1. The Tzemach Tzedek has already written that “this is specifically regarding the aspect of reciting those sections that are related to the order of prayer (לסדור תפלה). However, regarding the aspect of studying the laws of the Korbanot, there is no difference between day and night”.
  2. Even in this, it is not similar to the severity of the obligation of ‘prayer in its time’ (that must specifically be at the time of the offering of the Tamid)).

If so, the statement,

“The G-d-fearing person who is in awe of G-d’s word should recite it in its proper time, so that its recital should be regarded in place of its offering”

is puzzling.

For it implies that “so that its recital should be regarded in place of its offering” is dependent on its being recited in its proper time?

From this, it is proven, that the recital of the “Seder Korban Pesach” is considered like the actual deed of offering the Korban Pesach.

Therefore, “The G-d-fearing person who is in awe of G-d’s word should recite it in its proper time, so that its recital should be regarded in place of its offering”

This is also the precise wording of the Shaloh in his words before the Seder Korban Pesach, where he cites that the reason that prayers are in place of the Korbanot is because, “We offer the words of our lips in place of the sacrifice of bullocks”.

He continues,

“and in order that one offers the words of our lips in place of the sacrifice of bullocks, it is fitting to engage in the Seder Korban Pesach after the Minchah prayer”.

With this he emphasizes that:

  1. The essence of the recital of the Seder Korban Pesach is like the aspect of prayer.
  2. The “we offer the words of our lips in place of the sacrifice of bullocks” through the recital of Seder Korban Pesach is dependent upon reciting it in its time, “after the Minchah prayer”.

5. However, according to this, one must examine the Alter Rebbe’s words in his Siddur, where he changes (and omits) from the wording of the aforementioned Shaloh (as aforementioned Par.2), even though he cites the words (after the text of the Seder Korban Pesach):

“The G-d-fearing person who is in awe of G-d’s word should recite it in its proper time, so that its recital should be regarded in place of its offering”.

Plainly, one could say that the Alter Rebbe did this for conciseness, and especially since even in the Sefer Seder HaYom, the elaboration of the Shaloh, is omitted.

Seemingly, one could explain this more deeply:

The Alter Rebbe’s intent in this is, that there is an advantage in reciting the “Seder Korban Pesach”, even with regard to that which “prayers were enacted in place of the offerings”.

Regarding prayer, its relation to the deed of the offering of the Korban, is not visibly recognizable.

Rather, the Sages explained and revealed that the act (the speech) of prayer, is considered like the deed of the offering of the Korban. In other words, visibly, the person is not occupied in the aspect of the offering of the Korban

(for this is even not like the dictum that

“Anyone who engages in studying the law of a Sin-offering is ascribed etc.”,

where the person is visibly occupied with the Torah-teachings of the Korbanot).

Whereas, in our case - the recital of the Seder Korban Pesach – we recite the details of the order of the offering of the Korban as it was actually done in the Beit HaMikdash.

(for this is even more than studying the laws of the Korban, in the Oral Torah, as aforementioned)

In other words, the person actually engages in the aspect of the offering of the Korban. However, it is not in deed, but rather with his speech.

From this it is understood that when this speech is considered like the deed of the offering, this is even more than the act of the prayer. In other words, that it is considered as if he is standing in the Beit HaMikdash and he is actually doing all the details of the things that are said in the Seder Korban Pesach, the actual deed of the offering.

Therefore, the Alter Rebbe did not cite the words of the aforementioned, Shaloh, which implies that the “We offer the words of our lips in place of the sacrifice of bullocks” that comes through the recital of the Seder Korban Pesach is similar to that of “prayers were enacted in place of the offerings”. For the recital of the Seder Korban Pesach is in a more lofty manner.

6. According to the aforementioned, one can also explain why, here, there is a special obligation that

“One should be concerned about the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash, and plead before G-d, the Creator of the universe, that He rebuild it speedily in our days; Amen”.

For since the completeness of the deed of the Korban Pesach, is in its offering in the Beit HaMikdash. Therefore, in order that its recital be actually considered in the place of its offering, one must know that in the advantage of his recital being considered in place of his offering – “We offer the words of our lips in place of the sacrifice of bullocks” – there is still a lacking in the completeness of his offering, and he must concern himself over the destruction of the Temple and plead . . that He rebuild it.

For then, there will be the completeness of the offering of the Pesach. Together with the worry and pleas (הדאגה והתחנונים -ויתחנן), this effects that the recital is in the place of the actual offering.

According to this foundation, the conclusion

“If the Passover offering was found to be unfit (טריפה), one did not fulfill his obligation until he brings another one” -

is well understood.

For at the conclusion of “Seder Korban Pesach”, we emphasize the intent of this entire recital.

(like the saying: “everything follows the conclusion”)

Therefore, we say this law,

“If the Passover offering was found to be Treifah one did not fulfill his obligation”.

For with this it emphasizes that the deed of the person is not sufficient. Rather, primarily, there must be the object of the actual Korban. Therefore, if the Korban is disqualified, one did not fulfill his obligation and he must bring another.

(This fits with the aforementioned innovation, that the occupation with the Seder Korban Pesach must be in a manner that concerns him that it should be an actual offering, not just the result of the offering, or the advantage of the deed of the person, that is considered like the offering).

7. One can explain the reason that the Korban Pesach is different from the other Korbanot in the aspect of,

“We offer the words of our lips in place of the sacrifice of bullocks”.

Where specifically with it, we recite the Seder Korban Pesach in a manner that it is in place of the actual offering:

The Korban Pesach is the Korban of the Geulah of the Jewish people.

  • This is both regarding literal Geulah/Redemption, as it states in the Pesach of Egypt,

“You shall say, "It is the Pesach-offering to the L-rd Who passed over the houses of the Bnei Yisroel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and saved our homes”.

  • As well as an inner Geulah and freedom. Namely, the birth of the Jewish people, in the Exodus from Egypt, where Bnei Yisroel went out of a condition of “slaves to Pharaoh” to be “servants of G-d”.

This comes and is drawn down through the Korban Pesach.

From this comes two aspects:

  1. The essence of the occupation with the Korban Pesach, in these times is, that the person lifts himself up to a condition of Geulah and freedom (the essence of the aspect of the Korban Pesach). Therefore, there is in the recital of the Seder Korban Pesach, all the possible completeness in the time of Galut, in the aspect of the offering of the Korban. Not just the result, or even the quality of the person, but even more so (as aforementioned). But he also has the act of the offering. And it is not just as it is in the aspect of prayer, but even more than this (as aforementioned). This is as if he stands in the Beit HaMikdash and performs all the details of the things in the Seder Korban Pesach that he recites.
  1. On the other hand:

This itself brings him to feel the great lacking (גודל החסרון) in this that the Beit HaMikdash does not exist and there is no actual Geulah.

Despite all the qualities that exist in the recital of the Seder Korban Pesach,

(which is exactly as if he is standing in the Beit HaMikdash and fulfilling the entire Seder Korban Pesach).

nevertheless, it is incomparable (אינו) to the quality of offering of the Korban, actually and physically.

Therefore, in continuation to the recital of Seder Korban Pesach,

“in its proper time, so that its recital should be regarded in place of its offering”,

“One should be concerned about the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash, and plead before G-d, the Creator of the universe, that He rebuild it speedily in our days (and he concludes) Amen”.

8. One could say that the essence of the aspect of the aforementioned “concern” for the destruction of the Temple,

(which comes as a result of the lofty (העילוי) feeling in the offering of the actual offering of the Korban in the Beit HaMikdash, literally in physicality),

is also alluded to in the aforementioned Halacha in the conclusion of the Seder Korban Pesach,

 “If the Pesach offering was found to be Treifah (טריפה), one did not fulfill his obligation until he brings another one.”

For seemingly this requires explanation:

Why specifically mention the law of

“found to be Treifah (טריפה),”

and not

“found to have a physical blemish (בעל מום)”

For both of them are cited together in Rambam (moreover, “blemish” is stated before “Treifah”), as aforementioned Par. 1?

However, according to the aforementioned, one could say (according to allusion (רמז)) that the word “Treifah” alludes to Galut. This is like the statement of the Sages on the verse,

“You must not eat flesh that was torn off (Treifah) in the field”,

Once the flesh emerged outside its partition (Note: if the sacrificial meat was taken outside the partition of the courtyard, the meat is Treifah)”.

The allusion of this is that when Bnei Yisroel are found outside of their partition/environment – in other words, they are “outside” -in Galut. Then, even when their Avodah is at the epitome of quality and completeness, nevertheless, since they are found outside of their environment – in Galut – since they are found in “the field” – it is like “Treifah”. For they do not have the completeness of true vitality and freedom.

This is the allusion in this law, that at the time of the recital of Seder Korban Pesach, a person must feel, that although he lifts himself to a condition of spiritual Geulah and freedom – so much so, that he merits elevating himself in a manner of “Pesach” – an expression of skipping and leaping (דילוג וקפיצה) – in other words, an incomparable elevation – nevertheless, since the “Pesach/leaping” is “outside/in the field”, this is in the scope of Treifah, since he is still in Galut.

Therefore “one does not fulfill his obligation”. For notwithstanding all the qualities that exist in this recital, nevertheless when compared to the level of Yisroel in the time of Geulah, one comes to the recognition that “one does not fulfill his obligation – it is not an elevation for him” (לא עלה לו). In other words, regarding his level, this is not an elevation for him. This is completely incomparable to his true elevation in the time of Geulah.

One could say that this is why we conclude, “until he brings another” – “another” (אחר) in the positive sense, like in the Haggadah “another”

(Note: as it states,"And I will smite every first-born in the land of Egypt," I and not a Seraph . . I- the L-rd, it is I, and none other!” (ולא אחר))

who is above even that of a Seraph (the world of Beriah). A completely different Avodah (Atzilut) that is not comparable, at all, to the previous Avodah. This is the elevation that will exist with the offering of the Korban Pesach in the Third Beit HaMikdash, “that will be rebuilt speedily in our days; Amen”.

M’Sichas Erev Pesach, after the Mincha Prayer (5748)

Links:
 
 Date Delivered:   Reviewer:       
Date Modified:    Date Reviewed:  
Contributor: