English translation — בא ב

Sicha page 53

A.

We learned in Mishnah Pesachim¹,

that the festive-offering brought with the Passover-offering "is eaten for two days and one night".

And in the Gemara there²

: Our Mishnah is not like Ben Teima, as it was taught: Ben Teima says: The festive-offering brought with the Passover-offering is like the Passover-offering and is eaten only for a day and a night, etc. What is the reason of Ben Teima?..

And³

shall not remain until morning the sacrifice of the festival of Passover; the sacrifice of the festival — this is the festive-offering; the Passover-offering as its plain meaning, and the Merciful One said: It shall not remain.

Afterwards, the Gemara continues there: They inquired: For the son of Teima, is it eaten roasted or is it not eaten roasted? When the Torah juxtaposed it to the Pesach, [it was] for [the prohibition of] remaining overnight, but for roasting, no; or perhaps it is not different? Come and hear: This night, all of it is roasted<sup>4</sup>

And Rav Chisda said: This is the statement of ben Teima, infer from it.

The Rambam in Laws of Chametz and Matzah<sup>5</sup>

wrote

(in the text of "Mah Nishtanah")

— "That on all other nights we eat etc., and this night, all of it is roasted."

And the Lechem Mishneh<sup>6</sup> questioned

: It is astonishing regarding the words of our Master, for he rules in Laws of the Pesach Offering<sup>7</sup>..

that the Chagigah is eaten for two days and one night, and not like ben Teima; and if so, for us, certainly it is not eaten roasted..

And we do not have [the ability] to say "this night, all of it is roasted," for the Gemara said that this is according to ben Teima, who holds the juxtaposition and that the Chagigah is eaten roasted; but for us, that the Chagigah is not eaten roasted, we cannot say "all of it is roasted," for there is the Chagigah.

And in the Tzelach⁸

that the Rambam holds that also according to the Rabbis⁹

the festive-offering is eaten roasted¹⁰,

and their reason is because we find that Scripture called it Pesach,

and as the Rambam brought¹¹

"for regarding the festive-offering of the fourteenth it is said¹²

And you shall sacrifice the Pesach to the Lord your God, flock and cattle",

except that the Rabbis hold that not for every matter is it compared to the Pesach, but only for roasting

(which is a matter of eating)¹³.

2.

And now the explanation according to the view of the Rabbis that the festive-offering is compared to the Pesach only for roasting and not for every matter of eating¹⁴

(such as staying overnight¹⁵

"for the prohibition of<pg>54</pg>

Lina to eating is she"&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;)

— it can be said briefly:

The reason that the chagigah comes with the pesach is "so that the pesach should be eaten on a full stomach"&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;,

and it is found that the chagigah is secondary and a preparation for the pesach&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

Therefore the chagigah is equated to the pesach; however, for this reason only this eating of the chagigah that comes before

(And as an introduction to)

the eating of the pesach is equated to the pesach and is drawn after the eating of the pesach,

therefore it is eaten roasted like it; but after the completion of the eating of the pesach, the chagigah is no longer secondary to the pesach,

and it is not equated to it.

And based on this, one could say, seemingly,

that the Rabbis and Ben Taima disagree about the definition of the law¹⁷

of "the festive offering that comes with the Passover [lamb] is eaten first so that the Passover [lamb] may be eaten on a full stomach":

According to Ben Taima,

what they said that through the festive offering "the Passover [lamb] is eaten on a full stomach" is a reason not only for the precedence of eating the festive offering over eating the Passover [lamb],

but also for the entire essence of bringing the festive offering on the fourteenth,

that the reason for bringing the festive offering on the fourteenth is only so that the Passover [lamb] may be eaten on a full stomach¹⁹,

and it follows that the entire essence of the sacrifice is nothing but an accessory to the Passover [lamb],

and therefore Ben Taima holds that in all matters of the sacrifice it is compared to the Passover [lamb]

("all matters of the Passover [lamb] come in the festive offering through that comparison"²⁰)

;

But according to the Rabbis,

the reason that "so that the Paschal lamb should be eaten on a full stomach" is

(as per the simple language of the baraita)

only regarding the advancing of the eating of the festive offering before the eating of the Paschal lamb,

but not regarding the actual offering of the festive offering²¹.

And therefore, regarding this festive offering there are two laws: the actual offering has upon it the name of festive offering and the laws of festive offering; and only in the act of its eating,

and in this itself — only in the eating that comes as a preparation for the eating of the Paschal lamb — does it have the law of qualification for the act of eating the Paschal lamb,

and in this regard it is compared to the Paschal lamb,

and therefore the laws of eating the Paschal lamb apply then to the festive offering

(that it must be roasted).

But it is difficult to explain thus the dispute between ben Teima and the Rabbis — because from the simple language of the Gemara¹⁷,

"And with a small

(when the Paschal lamb was small for the eating of the members of the group²²)

what is the reason? It comes as it was taught: The festive offering that comes with the Paschal lamb is eaten first so that the Paschal lamb should be eaten on a full stomach",

it implies,

that the entire essence of bringing the festive offering is only so that the Paschal lamb should be eaten on a full stomach

(and so it is explained in Tosafot²³

and other early authorities²⁴,

that indeed that the festi-<pg>55</pg>

Gimel-Tes Yud-Daled is not obligatory, meaning that "it comes only so that he can eat the Pesach on a full stomach").

And thus, also according to the Rabbis, the entire bringing of the Chagigah is only a preparation for the Pesach

(and not only the act of eating it on the night of the fifteenth).

And furthermore: the very explanation above

(according to the opinion of the Rabbis)

that the eating of the Chagigah is a "preparation" for the eating of the Pesach — it does not have, seemingly, sufficient reason for the status of Pesach to apply to it to such an extent that it would be obligatory to eat it roasted specifically, like the Pesach itself.

And it must be said that this — that it is eaten roasted — is not only because the Chagigah has the name "preparation" for the Pesach,

but

(as the Sha'agas Aryeh wrote above)

because the Chagigah itself is called by the name Pesach

("And you shall slaughter the Pesach").

And since even according to the Sages the body of the offering is called by the name Pesach — a reason is needed,

why do the laws of the Pesach apply to it only regarding roasting?

3.

And one can say the explanation of this — with an introduction to the explanation of the Rambam's view on the law of reclining:

Regarding the law of reclining on Passover night, the Rambam wrote²⁵

"In every generation, a person is obligated to show himself as if he himself has now gone out from the bondage of Egypt, etc. Therefore, when a person dines on this night, he must eat and drink while reclining in a manner of freedom."

And at the end of the following law²⁶,

after he explains the details of the laws of reclining

(who is obligated in reclining,

and the manner of reclining),

he writes: "And when is reclining required? At the time of eating an olive's bulk of matzah and drinking these four cups."

And still an explanation is needed: Why did the Rambam divide the matter into two separate laws

[One law — "when a person dines on this night, he must eat and drink

(without specification)

while reclining in a manner of freedom",

and a second law — "and when is reclining required at the time of eating an olive's bulk of matzah, etc., and the rest of his eating, etc."]

And consequently, he also elaborates — seemingly, he should have abbreviated and written immediately in the first law: "Therefore, when one dines on this night, he must recline at the time of eating an olive's bulk of matzah, etc."

(and the like)?

And it was explained in this elsewhere²⁷,

that according to the opinion of the Rambam there are in reclining two laws: a)

A general commandment in itself,

that a person must show on the night of Passover conduct of the way of freedom,

by eating and drinking in a reclining manner

(And in this there is no difference which eating and drinking is discussed²⁸).

b)

A detail and condition in other commandments

(Eating of matzah and the obligation of drinking four cups)

— that one of the conditions of the commandments

(And obligations)

these is that it must be in the way of reclining.

And this is the difference between the two laws: in the first law — which comes in continuation of the preceding law of "In every generation a person is obligated to show himself as if he himself now went out from the slavery of Egypt etc."

(And continues)

Therefore when a person eats on this night he must<pg>56</pg>

To eat and drink while he reclines in the manner of freedom" — the intention of the Rambam is the obligation of reclining as an end in itself; and

(Conclusion)

The halacha after this

(After he detailed the particular laws of the obligation of reclining)

The Rambam writes "And when is reclining required",

that his intention with this is the second law in the obligation of reclining,

that reclining is

(Not a general obligation in itself,

but rather)

A condition for other commandments of this night

(In the commandments of eating matzah and the obligation of drinking four cups).

And these two laws in the obligation of reclining are emphasized even more in the golden language of the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch — that his language and arrangement of his words in the matter at hand is in the manner of the language of the Rambam:

At first he explains²⁹

"And he should prepare his place to sit reclining in the manner of freedom, as is the way that kings and great people eat, because in every generation a person is obligated to show himself etc. Therefore, one must do all the actions of this night in the manner of freedom."

And after several paragraphs

(detailing several laws of reclining)

He continues and explains³⁰

The matters that require reclining: "When must one recline during the eating of an olive's bulk..

Matzah etc., the eating of the sandwich etc., the Afikoman etc., the drinking of the four cups

(And he explains the reason)

Because all these matters are a remembrance of the redemption and freedom etc. Therefore they require reclining in the manner of freedom."

From which it is proven,

That in reclining there are two obligations and definitions:

(a)

A commandment in itself,

That is what is written in the preceding paragraph: "he should sit reclining in the manner of freedom etc., because in every generation etc., therefore one must do all the actions of this night in the manner of freedom."

And this is a general obligation to conduct oneself in the manner of freedom on this night; and afterwards he details

(b)

The matters that "require reclining in the manner of freedom,"

That is, this is

(not the fulfillment of the obligation of reclining in itself,

but rather)

A detail and condition regarding other matters

(And as per the precision of his language: "therefore they require reclining in the manner of freedom" — and he did not write "therefore one must recline in them" or the like).

4.

And from all this we learned,

that according to the opinion of the Rambam the reason is a)

a general obligation in itself,

that a person must recline "in the manner of freedom"

(and as the language of the Alter Rebbe above "he should prepare his place of sitting that he sit reclining in the manner of freedom in the manner that the kings and nobles eat"),

b)

the reclining becomes a condition in other commandments of Pesach,

in a manner,

that through eating matzah

(for example)

with reclining,

one fulfills thereby two laws:

(a)

the general obligation of reclining.

(b)

the fulfillment of the commandment of eating matzah in completeness.

And now at first glance there is to consider what is the reasoning and the necessity to innovate that the reclining is also a condition and detail in the other commandments of the night of Pesach,

and not to say that there is a general obligation of reclining,

but that the Sages instituted that the most appropriate time for fulfilling this obligation is during the fulfillment of certain commandments

(other)

of this night?

[And in particular, these commandments' main point is not "to show" freedom,

for even though "these things are a remembrance of the redemption and freedom" — nevertheless,

the actual deed of the commandment

(in these things)

is not an action that indicates freedom³¹.

For example — eating matzah,

for although the reason for eating it is because matzah is a remembrance of the redemption from Egypt

(that "they could not tarry, etc."³²),

it is simple that in the act of eating matzah there is no matter that indicates "a way of freedom"

(like in the act of reclining,

that the reclining itself indicates conduct of a son&lt;pg&gt;57&lt;/pg&gt;

free,

and in the manner of kings and nobles),

and on the contrary — matzah is poor man's bread³³].

And one must say,

that the foundation of the aforementioned Rambam's approach in the definition of the law of the cause

(rabbinic)

is — the law

(Torah)

"roasted" regarding the Paschal sacrifice

(for whatever the rabbis instituted, they instituted akin to Torah law&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;).

And as follows.

5.

Regarding the law of roasting the Paschal sacrifice, the Rambam wrote&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

"When a person eats the Paschal sacrifice, he cuts the meat and eats, and cuts, etc. And when he reaches the sciatic nerve, he removes it and places it with the rest of the sinews, bones, and membranes that come out during eating, for they do not remove them...

And they do not cut it, but rather roast it whole"

(And the Ra'avad disagrees: "There is no greater prohibition than to roast the Paschal sacrifice with the sciatic nerve and its fat, etc.").

And it requires clarification,

for seemingly every law of roasting the Paschal lamb is connected to its eating,

"And they shall eat the flesh on this night, roasted, etc."³⁶,

and thus it is entirely a detail in the eating of the Paschal lamb³⁷,

and what relevance is there to the command that they should roast it

(whole — also)

with the sinew etc. which is not related to eating?

And it is proven from this the opinion of the Rambam,

that the law of its roasting is not

(only)

a detail in the eating of the Paschal lamb,

but rather it is a part of the making of the Paschal lamb³⁸.

[And it can be said that its foundation is from this, that the Torah established specific laws in the manner of the roasting — "roasted over fire, its head with its legs and with its innards"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

from this it is implied,

that "roasted over fire etc." is not only a detail in the manner of eating the Paschal lamb,

but rather the act of roasting itself is a law and a commandment in its own right in the act of the offering].

And it can be said the explanation in this: In the Sefer HaChinuch&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

it is explained,

that "this that we are commanded to eat specifically roasted" is "because this is the way of kings and ministers to eat roasted meat, for it is a good and tasty food etc., and we who eat the Paschal lamb as a remembrance that we went out to freedom etc., certainly it is fitting for us to conduct ourselves in its eating in a manner of freedom and royalty."

And based on this it can be said that the Rambam holds,

that the obligation to eat roasted meat has two aspects: a)

One of the conditions of the mitzvah of eating the Paschal lamb.

b)

Part of the general obligation of "a person is obligated to show himself as if he himself has now gone out from the slavery of Egypt"⁴¹

— by doing "all⁴²

the actions of this night in a manner of freedom",

and behold, eating roasted meat indicates "a manner of freedom and lordship".

And for this reason, in the act of roasting itself there is importance in its own right, to the extent that special laws apply to it

(that do not pertain to the eating of the Paschal lamb,

and as above from the Rambam that they roast the sinew)

— since the matter of "roasting" is not

(only)

a detail and condition in the mitzvah of eating the Paschal lamb,

but rather it has

(also)

a matter in its own right — to indicate the matter of freedom

(which is a general matter and obligation in its own right on this night).

And it follows,

that the law of roasting teaches us,

that the Torah<pg>58</pg>

The action of "the way of freedom" was established this night in a manner,

that in addition to this that the obligation of "freedom"

(to do actions that indicate

("to show")

on "the way of freedom")

is a general matter in itself,

behold this general principle also became a condition and detail in the details of the mitzvah of the festival

(that the mitzvot themselves do not come to show freedom)

— and like the law of "roasted" which is a condition in eating the Paschal offering,

that the actual action of eating the meat of the Paschal offering has in it no element of an action of "the way of freedom"

[for the sacrifice is only a remembrance of the redemption from Egypt in a manner of "a Passover to the Lord"⁴³,

but the action of eating the meat is not an act that indicates "the way of freedom"

(in the manner of the above section 4 regarding eating matzah)]

— and the Torah innovated,

that also this eating must be in a manner of "the way of freedom and lordship",

roasted.

And from this the Rambam learned also regarding the law of "derech cherut" of the Rabbis — the obligation of reclining — that despite it being a general obligation in itself,

the Sages established it in a manner that it should be made a condition in the performance of the commandments of this night,

as above at length.

6.

According to the above, one may also explain the opinion of the Rambam regarding the Chagigah of the fourteenth:

Eating "on the satiety" is an important eating,

"in the manner that kings eat"⁴⁴

; and it follows that the law of eating the Paschal offering "on the satiety" is part of this, that its eating must be in the manner of "the way of freedom and lordship."

And based on this, also the reasoning to distinguish between the law of roasting and the other conditions of the Paschal offering is understood

(and to say that this that the Chagigah is juxtaposed to the Paschal offering is only regarding the law of roasting)

: since the entire essence of bringing the Chagigah pertains to this matter that in the eating of the Paschal offering,

what must be

("on the satiety" —)

"the way of freedom and lordship",

therefore the law of "roasting" that is in the eating of the Paschal offering also applies to it,

for its reason is also "in the manner that kings eat"⁴⁵.

But not so the other details of the laws in the Paschal offering,

which do not pertain to the matter of the freedom in it,

they do not pertain to the matter of the Chagigah.

And since the opinion of the Rambam regarding the law of "way of freedom" regarding this night is,

that it is not only a general obligation in itself,

but that the Torah established a "way of freedom" also regarding the other actions of the night

(which in themselves are not actions of "way of freedom"),

he holds that also according to the Rabbis the obligation of "way of freedom" applies to the chagigah — which comes on this night for the sake of the pesach —

(roasted),

and for this reason the Torah called the chagigah by the name "pesach"

("And you shall slaughter the pesach").

[And the dispute between Ben Teima and the Rabbis is: according to Ben Teima, it is impossible for a sacrifice that does not have the name pesach to have the definition of "freedom" applied to it,

and therefore he holds that when Scripture juxtaposed the chagigah to the pesach&lt;pg&gt;59&lt;/pg&gt;

It is made as part of the body of the paschal sacrifice⁴⁶

and all its laws like the paschal sacrifice⁴⁷

; but according to the Rabbis,

the law that the act of freedom applies

(also)

to "all the acts of this night",

also regarding the commandments of the festival which in themselves are not actions of a way of freedom

(to the extent that it becomes a condition and part of the commandments of matzah and drinking the four cups,

as above).

And likewise regarding the festival-offering of the fourteenth,

that the law of eating roasted

(eating "in a way of freedom")

applies also to a sacrifice that is not a paschal sacrifice,

for although it has a law and name in itself

(the festival-offering of the fourteenth,

"and it is eaten for two days and one night like all peace-offerings"⁴⁸)

there applies to it,

in it the law of the act of freedom and it is eaten roasted like the paschal sacrifice.

And one may connect this with the two opinions⁴⁹

— infer from it and from it,

infer from it and establish it in its place.

And elsewhere it is not [discussed].

7.

And behold, this matter that on the night of Passover — that there are in the act of freedom therein two matters:

(a)

as it is in itself,

(b)

as it acts and influences

(also)

upon another matter that is not an act of freedom in itself — this is because so it is in the general relationship of the content of the matter

(remembrance)

of the Exodus from Egypt to the entirety of the Torah and its commandments.

And the explanation: The Chinuch wrote⁵⁰

regarding the telling 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 not surprising if many commandments came to us about this, positive and negative").

And it uses here two terms — foundation and pillar,

which indicate two matters: a foundation has an advantage over a pillar,

in that it is the foundation upon which the entire building stands, and if the foundation is nullified, the entire building is nullified,

but not so a pillar, which ostensibly is only to support the standing building; however, on the other hand,

the foundation is something hidden and covered and is not the body of the building itself,

but not so a pillar, which is revealed and stands externally,

and it is a part of the body of the building itself.

And so is the relationship of Yetzias Mitzrayim to the commandments of the Torah:

Regarding the entirety of the Torah and its commandments, Yetzias Mitzrayim is the "foundation" of them,

and as it is said in the first statement

(first commandment)

of the Ten Commandments⁵¹

"I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt",

and the foundation belongs to and establishes the entire building; but on the other hand, this is not their particular content

(the revealed)

of all the commandments, but rather it is their foundation — in a "concealed" manner⁵².

However there are "many things

(that)

the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded to do as a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt..

such as the separation of the firstborn and all the festivals"⁵³,

in which the matter of the Exodus from Egypt is not in a manner of a foundation but in a manner of a pillar,

that is, it is a part of the content of these commandments⁵⁴,

and it is one of the "pillars" of the commandment.

<pg>60</pg>

And like the commandment of laying tefillin,

that one must intend in the laying of tefillin "that He commanded us⁵⁵

the Place to lay these four passages which contain the unity of His name and the Exodus from Egypt..

so that we remember the Exodus from Egypt through the miracles and wonders that He did with us, which indicate His unity, that He is unique in His world, and that to Him belong the power and dominion in the upper realms and in the lower realms to do with them as He wills".

Since the essence and content of the laying of tefillin is not limited to the matter of Yetzias Mitzrayim — and on the contrary: its main point is the subjugation of the heart and the mind etc.⁵⁶

— nevertheless,

also the matter of Yetzias Mitzrayim becomes a "pillar" of this mitzvah,

to the extent that this is one of the intentions of the laying of tefillin,

as above.

And it can be said that in this manner there is expressed even more the greatness of the matter of remembrance of Yetzias Mitzrayim — which not only is it a fundamental and general matter in the entirety of Torah and mitzvos,

but it also penetrates into the details of several mitzvos,

and becomes a pillar of several mitzvos.

And may it be His will that as in the days of your going out from the land of Egypt I will show him wonders⁵⁷,

in the true and complete redemption through our righteous Mashiach,

and speedily in our very own days.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Acharei-Kedoshim 5743)