English translation — וארא א

A.

Chazal say¹,

that the four cups which the Sages instituted to drink on the night of Pesach,

are corresponding to the four expressions of redemption

(which are at the beginning of our parshah²)

– “I will take out, and I will rescue, and I will redeem, and I will take.”

The Mordechai asks³

: “It should require four breads” – eating matzah on the night of Pesach is indeed from the Torah

(and “because our forefathers were redeemed from Egypt”⁴)

would it not

(more)

have been fitting to institute that for the “Seder” one take four matzot corresponding to the four expressions of redemption?

The Mordechai continues: “Therefore there are those who explain corresponding to the four cups mentioned for redemption etc.” – the aforementioned question is the reason of the “yesh mefarshim”

that the cups are “corresponding to the four cups mentioned for redemption,”

which is not relevant to bread.

One must, however, answer the aforementioned question according to all the commentators – and especially according to the aforementioned reason

(and opinion

– which the Alter Rebbe brings as halacha in Shulchan Aruch

– that the four cups are corresponding to the four expressions of redemption.

2.

The law is⁹,

that for the Seder one must take three matzahs.

And the reason for this is,

because one needs two completions “to break bread on them as on other festivals” and “one additional piece because of bread of affliction”¹⁰

as it states in Mordechai¹¹

another reason: three matzahs in memory of the thanksgiving loaves).

And to add, since every matter in Torah is precise,

it is reasonable to say,

that also the number of the three matzot is

(not only from a side reason,

but also – like the number of cups)

connected with the content and reason of eating matzah in general,

which is

(as above)

“because our ancestors were redeemed from Egypt”¹².

According to this it comes out,

that in the redemption from Egypt there are two matters: one matter that consists of three details,

which the matter

(of the redemption)

is expressed in the eating of matzah,

and therefore one takes three matzot; and a second matter that consists of four details

(four expressions of redemption),

corresponding to which they instituted the four cups.

3.

And one must say the explanation in this:

It is known what is written in the books¹³

that at the time of the Exodus from Egypt, Jews were not worthy of the redemption,

and to such an extent,

that if Jews had remained another moment in Egypt,

they would have, may He save us, completely sunk into the impurity of Egypt

(the fifty gates of impurity).

Only the Almighty took them out “in the blink of an eye”¹⁴

from

Egypt – “the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed Himself to them and redeemed them.”

And one can say that this is the matter that the perfection of the Exodus from Egypt was only at the Giving of the Torah¹⁵

that the fourth

(last¹⁶)

expression,

“And I will take you to Me as a people”,

means – at the time – through – the Giving of the Torah¹⁷]

– because the purpose of the Exodus from Egypt and its perfection is that the Jews should go out completely from

(the impurity of)

(the impurity of)

Egypt.

And this was “done” in practice in the days between the Exodus from Egypt and the Giving of the Torah,

when Jews prepared themselves for the Receiving of the Torah¹⁸,

until, coming to the Giving of the Torah, Jews were already worthy of the title “holy nation”¹⁹.

According to this, the difference between “matzah” and “wine” is understood

(cups)²⁰

Matzah emphasizes the Exodus from Egypt as it came

(not

(so)

from the side of the service of Jews,

but)

in a manner of – in the language of the Haggadah "This matzah that we eat ..

because the dough of our ancestors did not have time to become leavened until the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed Himself to them and redeemed them",

from the side of the Above; matzah is connected with the "haste"²¹

of the redemption – "the dough of our ancestors did not have time to become leavened" – the "haste" to take out²²

the Jews from the impurity of Egypt²³

And therefore matzah must be "poor man's bread"²⁴

specifically,

there is no poor person except in knowledge²⁵,

a memorial to the state of poverty in holiness and purity.

And simply – a bread that has no taste

(like chametz or enriched matzah²⁶)

– because "taste" indicates²⁷

about a matter that the person has a relish in it,

whether because it is tasty and explained in his intellect or he feels in it a feeling and vitality in his emotions; but since the redemption from

(the impurity of)

Egypt came from above

(and not from the side of the preparation for it from the side of the Jews),

it is understood,

that there was not in them a "taste" in it.

We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt,

and a slave prefers to be ownerless²⁸.

And even on the fifteenth of Nissan and after it there still remained in them from the evil and impurity of Egypt and it was "the people fled" to escape from Egypt,

which means – the going out from evil in the way of subjugation²⁹

from the side of acceptance of the yoke.

Not so wine which has a taste,

a flavor,

so that this calls forth song by the person who drinks

(one does not say song except over wine³⁰)

— it is a "remembrance of the redemption and of freedom"³¹

also as it finally became actualized in practice among Jews,

that they

(from the perspective of their service and existence³²)

were redeemed from the evil of Egypt.

D.

According to this one will understand the reason for the difference between the number of commandments

(three)

and the number of cups

(four)²⁰

In the four expressions of redemption there is a difference between the first three expressions and the fourth: the first three expressions – “I will take you out from under the burdens of Egypt and I will rescue you from their service and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments” – are matters of redemption that occurred immediately at the Exodus from Egypt,

because they came from Above,

as above; but the fourth matter “I will take you to Me as a people”,

although also here it is said “I will take”

(from Above),

it is nevertheless dependent on Jews,

they must become worthy to be “to Me as a people”.

And this was actualized in practice in completeness only at the Giving of the Torah

(as above).

And therefore matzah is in number three – corresponding to the first three expressions of redemption – because in matzah is emphasized the redemption as it comes from the side of the Almighty; but the cups of wine,

since they allude to the redemption as it was actualized through and in Jews,

they are in number four – including also the fourth expression

(I will take you to Me as a people).

And for this reason only eating matzah is from the Torah,

because at the Exodus from Egypt

(the night of Passover)

there was in actuality only the redemption from above – the first three matters.

5.

In greater depth one can say,

that there is a connection

(inner)

between matzah and the cups

(wine)

and the

(their)

numbers three and four:

The difference between the numbers 3 and 4 is understood from the statement of Chazal³³

regarding the letters Gimel and Dalet – “Gimmel Daled – gomel dalim.”

That is, that Gimel alludes to the “gomel”

and Dalet to the “dal”

And this is also brought out in the numbers 3 and 4³⁴

: An “influence” as it still stands within the influencer

(giver)

(giver),

consists of three aspects,

while the influence already arrives to the recipient,

a fourth aspect comes – the

(area and vessel of)

(recipient).

recipient³⁵

(which was previously in concealment in the influence),

(“receiver”)

of a logical thing: every intellect has its “letters” in which it is clothed,

but in the logical thing itself,

as it is before the person grasps it in his intellectual vessel,

the letters are not recognizable,

the content is heard,

the “light” of the intellect; when the intellect is received in the vessels of comprehension of the person, the letters become revealed and recognizable³⁶].

This is also one of the explanations of the difference between the Patriarchs and Matriarchs – three Patriarchs and four Matriarchs³⁷

The title “father” and “mother” is connected with their influence,

the birth of sons and daughters and of the differences between them in the influence is: in the drop

(the influence)

of the father the “limbs of the child are included ..

in great concealment”,

but the “mother brings it to revelation in her giving birth to a complete child”<sup>38</sup>

– from the side of the father,

the “influencer”,

the influenced thing is still

(the child)

not in a revealed form – the revelation of the influence and in actual practice

(in the receiving vessel)

is through the mother.

And therefore there are three fathers – because the influence as it is from the side of

(and in)

the “influencer”

(fathers)

is arrayed in three aspects as above; but the mothers,

the aspect of receiver,

are in number four<sup>39</sup>.

6.

In a similar way, it is regarding the Exodus from Egypt:

In the redemption from Egypt

(as it came from Above)

was included “in potential” the entire redemption in its completeness

(also the redemption as it came afterwards to actual revelation at the giving of the Torah),

It is only that “there” it is in concealment.

And this is also one of the differences between matzah and wine

(cups)

The “remembrance³¹

of the redemption and freedom” from the aspect of the Written Torah – “the instruction of your father”⁴⁰

– emphasizes the redemption as it is from the aspect of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and therefore⁴²

it is

(a)

through eating matzah,

and

(b)

in a number of three

(because just as the “influence” is included in the “influencer,” it is expressed in three,

as above)

The sages – the Oral Torah,

"your mother's Torah"⁴⁰

– have

(added and)

enacted that the "remembrance of the redemption and freedom" must

(also)

be in a manner that one should hear how the redemption is from the aspect of the receiver,

Israel.

And therefore⁴²

it comes in

(a)

drinking of wine that has a taste,

and

(b)

in a number of four specifically.

7.

The above explanation

(in the reason for the three mitzvos)

also provides an explanation for a puzzling thing that is found regarding matzah:

The law is⁴³

that "if one swallowed matzah he has fulfilled [the obligation]" – there is no obligation to taste the taste of matzah,

and if only there was eating⁴⁴

of matzah – even by way of swallowing – one fulfills the obligation

(however, regarding maror⁴³

one does not fulfill [the obligation] "until⁴⁵

he tastes the bitterness of it in his mouth").

But on the other hand, the law is,

that one does not fulfill [the obligation] with cooked matzah⁴⁶

or even with a matzah that was soaked in fruit juice⁴⁷,

because "even though⁴⁸

one does not need to taste the taste of matzah in his mouth ..

nevertheless, the matzah itself must have the taste of matzah

(and not that its taste be impaired by another taste)

It is not understood

(as the commentators⁴⁹

ask)

: Since at the eating of matzah it is not required that the person feel the taste of matzah – why does the "matzah itself" need to have "the taste of matzah"?

And the explanation

(inner⁵⁰)

in this: That which regarding the commandment of eating matzah there does not need to be a taste of matzah is only from the side of the "person" – because among the Jews was the redemption from Egypt,

which came from above,

a matter in which they did not have a "taste",

as above; and therefore only the eating of matzah is necessary,

in a manner that it should become blood and flesh as his flesh

(– that the redemption should be internalized with the very essence of the redeemed),

but – not specifically that the palate eating should taste⁵¹,

not specifically that he should feel a taste and pleasure from the taste of matzah⁵².

But from the side of the object,

the command of Hashem makes the reality of

(the commandment)

matzah,

from the side of the Above, in the redemption was given the power to transform Jews so that they should be redeemed

(also from the side of their existence)

from the impurity of Egypt.

And therefore the object "matzah itself" must have a "taste of matzah",

because the redemption itself gave

(it needed to have this beforehand)

the power for "taste"

(but in practice this was revealed among the Jews at the giving of the Torah).

Nevertheless, one can fulfill the obligation of eating matzah only with poor man's bread and not with rich matzah

(as above, section 3)

– that is, that the "taste" that exists and must be in the matzah is entirely "taste of matzah,"

but not any flavor and pleasure that comes from something that is not "matzah"

(like the taste of rich matzah)

And as this is reflected in divine service, it means: "taste of matzah" is the delight in acceptance of the yoke⁵³,

not from intellect – rather poor man's bread

(in intellect).

This is not the delight that comes from intellect or emotions,

which bring taste and pleasure,

rather – his acceptance of the yoke is with a delight.

(From the last farbrengen of Pesach 5742)