Vol 31.09 - Bo 2 Spanish French Audio Video
Explanation of viewpoint of Rambam (Hil. Chometz U'Matzah 8:2): "The Chagigah is eaten roasted". The words of the Tzlach that Rambam holds that according to the Rabbanan ( Pes. 69b) Chagiga is compared (hekesh) to Korban Pesach regarding roasting; Viewpoint of Rambam (Hil. Korban Pesach 10:11) that the Korban Pesach is roasted whole
(even with the Gid HaNasheh (sciatic nerve) (5747)
1. We learn in Tractate Pesachim (69b):
The Chagigah (Festival peace-offering) that comes with the Pesach offering (the Paschal lamb),
"is eaten for two days and one night".
The Talmud there states:
“The Mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of ben Teima, for it was taught in a Beraita that ben Teima says: The Chagigah that comes with the (Korban) Pesach is like the Pesach, and is eaten for only a day and a night etc.
The Talmud asks: What is the reason for ben Teima’s opinion?
The Talmud explains that it is based on the following verse: “Neither shall the offering of the feast of the Pesach be left to the morning” (Ex. 34:25).
And with regard to both Korbanot, the Merciful One states in the Torah: “It shall not be left to the morning.”
Afterward the Talmud continues there:
“They asked, according to the opinion of ben Teima, is the Chagigah eaten roasted (like the Korban Pesach itself) or is it not eaten roasted? For when the Merciful One compares (אקשי׳) the Chagigah to the Pesach, was that only with regard to leaving it over until the morning (לינה) - but with regard to the Mitzvah of roasting, no such comparison is made? Or perhaps there is no difference?
Come and hear a solution from what was taught in a Mishna:
(Note: In the time of the Temple, one of the questions that the children would ask on the night of Pesach was: How is this night different from all other nights? For on all other nights we eat meat that is roasted, stewed, or boiled, whereas on this night it is all roasted)
And Rav Chisda said: This is the statement of ben Teima, indicating that even the Chagigah-offering of the fourteenth must be roasted. The Talmud concludes: Learn from this that the Chagigah must be roasted just like the Korban Pesach”.
Rambam in the Hilchot Chametz u’Matzah writes (in the text of the “Mah Nishtaneh” liturgy in the Haggadah) –
“On all other nights, we eat roasted, boiled, or cooked meat. On this night we eat only roasted”?
The Lechem Mishnah asks–
“It is a question on the words of our Rabbi, for he rules in Hilchot Korban Pesach, that.
"The Chagigah is eaten for two days and one night, not like ben Teima. If so, for us, it certainly is not eaten roasted . . and we do not recite, “On this night we eat only roasted”. For in the Talmud, we say that this is like the words of ben Teima who maintains that there is a comparison (היקשא) and that the Chagigah is eaten roasted. However, since we maintain that the Chagigah is not eaten roasted, we may not say “only roasted” for there is the Chagigah”.
The Tzlach (acronym for Tziyon Lenefesh Chaya - R' Yechezkel Landau) answers that Rambam maintains that even according to the Rabbanan, the Chagigah is eaten roasted, and their reasoning is because we find that Scripture calls it (i.e. the Chagigah): “Pesach”.
As Rambam cites,
“That for the Chagigah of the fourteenth it states, ‘And you shall bring a Paschal offering to G-d your L-rd from sheep and from cattle’".
However, the Rabbanan maintain that the comparison of the Chagigah to the Korban Pesach is not in all matters – rather, only regarding its being roasted (which is a matter of eating).
2. One could say that the reason why the Rabbanan maintain that the Chagigah is compared to the Korban Pesach solely in the matter of roasting, however, not in all matters of eating -
(like with regard to leaving it over until the morning (לינה), where, as Rashi states, “the warning of leaving it over until the morning is a command of its eating”)
The reason that the Chagigah comes with the Pesach is,
"so that the Korban Pesach be eaten on satiety" (כדי שיהא פסח נאכל על השובע)
We therefore find that the Chagigah is like a subordinate and preparation (כטפל ומכשיר) to the Pesach. Therefore, the Chagigah is compared to the Pesach. However, for this very reason, solely this eating of the Chagigah, that comes before (and as a prelude to) eating the Pesach, is compared to the Pesach, and shadows the eating of the Pesach. Therefore, it is eaten roasted, like the Pesach.
However, after the completion of the eating of the Pesach, the Chagigah is no longer subordinate to the Pesach, and it is not compared to it.
According to this, one can seemingly say that the Rabbanan and Ben Teima argue in the scope of the law of:
"The Chagigah that comes with the Pesach, is eaten first in order that the Pesach will be eaten when one is already satiated":
According to Ben Teima, that which we say, that through the Chagigah, the “Pesach is eaten on satiety" is a reason, not only for prefacing the eating of the Chagigah before eating the Korban Pesach. Rather, it is also a reason for the entire point of bringing the Chagigah on the 14th. (of Nisan -Pesach night). The reason for bringing the Chagigah on the 14th is just in order that the Pesach be eaten on satiety. Therefore, we find that the whole purpose of the Korban is just a preparation for the Pesach. Therefore ben Teima maintains that in every act, the Korban is compared to the Pesach.
(“all aspects of the Pesach, are included in the Chagigah, with that comparison” - Rashi).
However, according to the opinion of the Rabbanan, the reason,
"in order that the Pesach will be eaten when one is already satiated"
is (like the plain wording of the Beraita) just on the prefacing of the eating of the Chagigah to the eating of the Korban Pesach. However, not on the essential aspect of offering the Chagigah. Therefore, in this Chagigah offering, there are two laws:
– and in this itself, solely in the eating that comes as a prelude the eating of the Korban Pesach –
it possesses a law of preparation (דין הכשר) to the act of the eating of the Pesach. For this aspect, it is compared to the Pesach. Therefore, at that time, the laws of the eating of the Korban Pesach apply to the Chagigah (that it must be roasted).
However, it is difficult to explain the dispute between Ben Teima and Rabbanan so.
For from the plain wording of the Talmud,
“If (the Korban Pesach) is small?
(Namely, that there were small portions for members of the group)
what is the reason that it nevertheless comes”? For did we not learn in a Beraita that ‘The Chagigah that comes with the Korban Pesach is eaten first in order that the Korban Pesach will be eaten when one is already satiated”?
it implies that the entire purpose of bringing the Chagigah is just in order that the Pesach be eaten when one is satiated.
(This is also explained so in Tosafot, and other Rishonim, that though the Chagigah of the 14th is not obligatory – this means that “it does not come except so that the Pesach will be eaten in satiety").
If so, even according to the view of the Rabbanan, the entire purpose of bringing the Chagigah is just as a preparation to the Pesach (and not just as an act of eating it of the night of the 15th).
Moreover: the essence of the aforementioned explanation (in the Rabbanan's opinion) that eating the Chagigah is a "preparation" for eating the Pesach – is not a sufficient enough reason, seemingly, that the scope of the Pesach should apply to it. So much so, that it should be required to be eaten specifically roasted- just like the Pesach itself.
Therefore, one must say that the reason that it is eaten roasted, is not because the Chagigah has the “name” of a “preparation” to the Pesach (שם ״מכשיר״ לפסח), but rather (as the Tzlach states above) because the Chagigah itself is called “Pesach” ("And you shall bring a Paschal offering- וזבחת פסח”).
Since, even according to the Sages, the body of the Korban () is also called the name Pesach – a reason is required as to why the laws of Pesach apply to it, only with regard to roasting?
3. One could say that the explanation of this, by prefacing an explanation of Rambam’s view regarding the law of reclining:
In the law of reclining on the night of Pesach, Rambam writes:
"In each and every generation, a person must present himself as if he, himself, has now left the slavery of Egypt etc. Therefore, when a person feasts on this night, he must eat and drink while he is reclining in the manner of free men.”
At the end of the following Halacha, after he explains the particulars of the laws of reclining (i.e. who is obligated to recline, and the manner of reclining), he writes:
“When must one recline? when eating the Kezayit (כזית/olive-sized portion) of Matzah and when drinking these four cups of wine”.
It still requires explanation:
Why does Rambam divide the matter into two separate laws:
Seemingly, he should have been concise and written immediately in the first Halacha:
"Therefore, when a person dines on this night, he must recline at the time of eating a Kezayit of Matzah etc. (and so forth)”?
It has been explained in another place (לקו"ש חי"א ע' 15) that according to Rambam's view there are two laws in reclining:
(and in this there is no difference regarding which eating and drinking it is speaking of).
This is the difference between the two Halachot:
“In each and every generation, a person must present himself as if he, himself, has now left the slavery of Egypt, etc.” (he continues and writes),
“Therefore, when a person feasts on this night, he must eat and drink while he is reclining in the manner of free men”.
Rambam's intent is regarding the obligation of reclining, in its own right ;
"When must one recline?"
His intent with this is for the second law of the obligation of reclining – that which reclining is (not a general obligation, in and of itself, but rather) a condition of the other Mitzvot of this night (in the Mitzvot of eating Matzah and the obligation of drinking four cups).
These two laws in the obligation of reclining are further emphasized in the golden language of the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch. For his language and the arrangement of his words, in this case, is similar to the wording of Rambam:
First the Alter Rebbe explains:
“One should prepare a place to sit so that he will be able to recline in a manner (that reflects) freedom, as kings and men of great stature do while eating. For in every generation, a person is obligated to present himself etc. Therefore, one must carry out all the practices of this night in a manner that reflects freedom”.
After many paragraphs (סעיפים), (and specifically, after many laws of the reclining) he continues and explains the things that require reclining,
“When is it necessary to recline? When eating the Kezayit . .of Matzah . . when eating the Korech . . the afikoman . . the drinking of the four cups of wine" (and he explains the rationale): "For all of these things are a remembrance of the redemption and freedom etc. Therefore, they require reclining in a manner of freedom”.
From this it is proven, that regarding reclining, there are two obligations and scopes:
"One must recline in a manner of freedom. .For in every generation. . Therefore, one must carry out all the practices of this night in a manner that reflects freedom”.
In other words, that this is a general obligation, to conduct oneself in a manner of freedom on this night.
"require reclining in a manner of freedom"
In other words, this is (not just the fulfillment of the obligation of reclining, in itself, but rather it is) a detail and condition in other things.
(Like his precise wording, where he writes, "therefore, they require reclining in a manner of freedom"- and did not write "therefore, one must recline when doing them” and so forth).
4. From all this we learn, that according to Rambam's view the reclining is:
1. A general obligation, in its own right - that a person must recline, “in a manner of freedom”.
(and like the words of the aforementioned Alter Rebbe
“One should prepare a place to sit so that he will be able to recline in a manner (that reflects) freedom, as kings and men of great stature do while eating”).
2. The reclining becomes a condition in the other Mitzvot of Pesach - in a manner that through eating Matzah (for example) while reclining, one fulfills, with this, two laws:
One should seemingly examine, what is the reason and the necessity to innovate, that reclining is also a condition and detail in the other Mitzvot of the night of Pesach? Why cannot one say that there is a general obligation of reclining, but that the Sages have prescribed that the most appropriate time to fulfill this obligation is at the time of fulfilling the (other) specific Mitzvot of this night?
(Especially, since the main purpose of these Mitzvot is not "to show" freedom. For although, "these things are a remembrance of the redemption and freedom". Nevertheless, the actual act of the Mitzvah (גוף מעשה המצוה) (in these things) is not an act that depicts freedom.
For example - eating Matzah. Although the reason for its consumming, is because Matzah is a remembrance of the redemption of Egypt ("they could not delay etc.”). It is simple, that in the act of eating Matzah, there is no aspect that depicts, a “manner of freedom".
(As opposed to the act of reclining, where the actual reclining itself depicts the conduct of a free person, like the manner of kings and men of great stature).
On the contrary - Matzah is bread of poverty (לחם עוני)) .
One could say, that the foundation of Rambam’s aforementioned view, regarding the scope of the law of reclining (of the Rabbanan) is - a (Torah) law of "roasting” (צלי) in the Korban Pesach,
(“For all ordinances that the Sages instituted, they instituted similar to Torah law.”).
as will be explained.
5. In the law of roasting the Korban Pesach, Rambam writes,
“When a person partakes of the Paschal sacrifice, he should cut off the meat and partake of it. He may cut off the bones at the joints . . When he reaches the Gid HaNasheh (sciatic nerve), he should remove it and place it with the other sinews, bones, and membranes, which are removed at the time of eating. It is not removed previously, as is done with regard to other meat . . it should not be cut into pieces before it is roasted, but it is roasted whole.”
(However, the Raavad disagrees and writes, “there is no prohibition greater than this -that one roasts the Pesach together with the Gid HaNasheh, and its fats etc.)
One must examine this. For seemingly, the entire law of roasting the Pesach is connected with its eating, as it states,
“And on this night, they shall eat the flesh, roasted etc.”
If so, everything is a detail of the eating of the Korban Pesach.
Therefore, what is the point of the commandment that it be roasted (whole – even) with the Gid HaNasheh intact etc. which is not fitting to be eaten?
Rambam’s view is proven from this very point. Namely, that the law of its roasting is not (just) a detail in the eating of the Korban Pesach, but rather, it is part of the making of the Korban Pesach (מעשיית הפסח).
(One could say that his foundation is from that which the Torah established the details of the laws in the manner of the act of roasting, as it states:
"roasted over the fire its head with its legs and with its innards”.
From this, it implies that “roasting etc.” is not just a detail in the manner of eating the Korban Pesach. Rather, that the act of the roasting itself is a law and Mitzvah, in its own right – in the act of the Korban).
One could say that the explanation of this is:
Sefer HaChinuch explains that,
"That which we have been commanded to specifically eat it roasted” is “because such is the manner of the children of kings and ministers, to eat roasted meat - as it is a good and tasty food. . And it is certainly fitting for us - who eat the Pesach sacrifice (to remember) that we went out into freedom . . to behave in a manner of freedom and lordship, in its eating”.
According to this, one could say that Rambam maintains, that the obligation to eat the Korban Pesach - roasted - contains two aspects:
"a person must present himself as if he, himself, has now left the slavery of Egypt”-
that is accmplished by doing "all the practices of this night in a manner that reflects freedom”.
Eating roasted meat indicates a "manner of freedom and lordship". For this reason, the actual act of roasting, possesses an importance ( חשיבות), in its own right. So much so, that special laws apply to it
(which do not apply to eating the Korban Pesach. And as aforementioned from Rambam – where he states that we roast the Gid HaNasheh with it) –
For the aspect of "roasting" is not (just) a detail and condition in the Mitzvah of eating the Pesach. Rather, it (also) possesses an aspect in its own right. Namely, to depict the aspect of freedom (which is a general aspect and obligation, in its own right, on this night).
Thus, we find, that law of roasting teaches us, that the Torah established the act of "the manner of freedom"of this night, in such a way, that in addition to that which the obligation of "freedom"
(to do actions that depict ("to show") on the "manner of freedom")
is a general matter in its own right - this rule is also made a condition and detail, in the particular Mitzvot of the holiday (that, of themselves, do not come to show freedom).
This is like the law of "roasting" which is a condition in eating the Pesach. For the very act of eating the meat of the Korban Pesach does not have, within it, an act of a “manner of freedom".
(The Korban is only a remembrance of the redemption of Egypt in a manner that it is “a Korban Pesach to G-d” (פםח ה׳). However, the act of eating meat does not contain an act that shows a “manner of freedom".
(Similar to the aforementioned (Par. 4) regarding the eating of Matzah))
The Torah innovated, that even this eating must also be in “a manner of freedom and lordship " - roasted.
From this, Rambam also learns this regarding the law of "manner of freedom" of the Rabbanan. Namely, the obligation of reclining (הסיבה). For although it is a general obligation, in its own right, the Sages established it in a way that it be made a condition in the act of the Mitzvot, of this night, as has been explained, at length.
6. According to all the above, one can also explain Rambam's view of the Chagigah of the fourteenth:
Eating "while satiated" is a worthy eating (חשובה) "like the way kings eat". Therefore, we find that the law of eating the Pesach "on satiety" is a part of that which, its eating must be in a manner of "a manner of freedom and lordship".
According to this, the difference between law of roasting, to the other conditions of the Pesach
(and to say that the reason the comparison of the Chagigah to the Korban Pesach is solely with regard to the law of roasting),
is also understood:
Since the whole point of offering the Chagigah is related to this matter of eating the Pesach - that it must be ("on satiety" -) "a manner of freedom and dominion”, therefore, also the law of “roasting" of the eating of Pesach – applies to it. For even its reason is "the way the kings eat".
Whereas, the other details of the laws of the Pesach, which are not related to the aspect of the freedom within it, are not related to the aspect of the Chagigah.
Since Rambam's view in the law of "manner of freedom", of this night, is that it is not only a general obligation, in its own right, but that the Torah established a "manner of freedom" also in the other acts of the night,
(that in and of themselves, are not actions of the "manner of freedom"),
He maintains that also according to the Rabbanan, there applies to the Chagigah - which is offered this night for the purpose of the Pesach - the obligation of "manner of freedom" (roasted). From this reason, the Torah calls the Chagigah: "Pesach" ("and you shall slaughter the Korban Pesach").
(The dispute between Ben Teima and the Rabbanan is:
Therefore, he maintains that
“When the Torah compared the Chagigah to the Korban Pesach, it became a part of the actual Pesach (נעשה כחלק מגוף הפסח)”
and all its laws are like the laws of the Pesach.
(So much so, that they are made a condition and part of the Mitzvot of eating Matzah and drinking the four cups, as aforementioned).
The same is with regard to the Chagigah of the fourteenth. The law of eating it roasted (eating it "in a manner of freedom") also applies to a Korban that is not a Korban Pesach. For although, it possesses a law and a name in its own right applies to it,
(The Chagigah of fourteenth, as Rambam states , "It may be eaten for two days and one night like all other peace-offerings"),
it possesses the law of the act of freedom, and it is eaten roasted like the Korban Pesach.
One can connect this with the two opinions in the Talmud, "Don Mina u'Mina and Don Mina v'Oki b'Asra". However, this is not the place to discuss it.
(Note This debate concerns whether one may extend all of the characteristics of the original case, to the case being deduced from it via a Gezerat Shaveh (textual comparison), or not. Cf.
7. This aspect of the Pesach night - that in the act of freedom on it, there are two aspects:
1. As it is in its own right
2. As it acts and affects (also) another aspects, that are not an act of freedom, in its own right –
is because this is so, in the general relationship of the aspect (of the remembrance) of the exodus from Egypt - to the entirety of Torah and Mitzvot.
The explanation of this is:
The Chinuch writes regarding the story of the Exodus from Egypt that,
"it is a great foundation and a strong pillar in our Torah and in our faith"
(and therefore, "it is no wonder if there are many commandments that came about this - positive commandments and negative commandments").
The Chinuch uses two phrases:
“A foundation and pillar” – that depict two aspects:
However, on the other hand, the foundation is something that is buried and covered, and is not the body of the building itself.
Whereas, a pillar is revealed and stands outside, and it is a part of the body of the building itself.
The same is the relation of the exodus of Egypt, to the Mitzvot in the Torah:
Regarding the whole of Torah and Mitzvot, the exodus from Egypt is their "foundation". This is like the first statement (the first Mitzvah) of the Ten Commandments,
“I am the L‑rd your G‑d, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt"
This foundation applies and supports the entire building.
On the other hand, this is not (the revealed) specific context of all the Mitzvot. Rather it is their foundation - in a “hidden” (טמון) manner.
However, there are,
"Many things (which) G-d commanded to do as a remembrance to the exodus from Egypt . . Such as the separation of the firstborns and all the festivals".
Of them, the aspect of the exodus from Egypt is not in a manner of a foundation, but rather in a manner of a "pillar". In other words, it is a part of the context of these Mitzvot (חלק מתוכן מצות אלו), and it is one of the “pillars” of the Mitzvah.
For example, like the Mitzvah of putting on Tefillin, where one must have the intention when putting on tefillin that,
"The Omnipresent commanded us to place these four passages which speak of the Unity of G-d’s Name and the Exodus from Egypt . . in order that we remember the exodus from Egypt through the miracles and wonders which He wrought on our behalf, which depict His Unity, that He is Unique in His world, and that He has the power and the sovereignty in the upper realms and in the lower realms to do as He wishes”.
Although, the essence and context of putting on tefillin is not limited to the aspect of the exodus from Egypt. On the contrary, its main aspect is subjugating one’s heart and mind etc. Nevertheless, the aspect of the exodus from Egypt also becomes a "pillar" of this Mitzvah. So much so, that this is one of the intentions of putting on tefillin, as aforementioned.
One could say, that in this manner, the importance of the matter of remembering the exodus from Egypt - is further expressed. Namely, that not only that it is a fundamental and general aspect in the whole of Torah and Mitzvot - but that it also permeates within the details of many Mitzvot, and becomes a pillar of many Mitzvot.
May it be His will, that it be, “As in the days of your exodus from the land of Egypt, I will show wonders”, with the true and complete Geulah by our righteous Moshiach, and speedily and in our days, mamosh.
M’sichas Acharon Shel Pesach 5743
|Date Modified:||Date Reviewed:|