English translation — חה"פ

Sicha 1<pg>44</pg>

A.

The Rambam wrote

(in Hilchos Chametz and Matzah<sup>1</sup>)

: "In this time..

after reciting HaMotzi Lechem he returns and recites the blessing on eating matzah and dips the matzah in charoses and eats."

And so is the opinion of Rav Amram Gaon<sup>2</sup>,

Ritz Gias and others

(as brought in Magid Mishnah here)

that they dip the matzah in charoses.

But the Ra'avad objected to him and wrote "This is nonsense."

And also the Tur<sup>3</sup>

wrote on this approach "And I do not know this dipping in charoset why etc. And also the Ba'al HaManhig<sup>4</sup> objected

to their words that matzah is a reminder of freedom and charoset a reminder of mortar and how can they be joined with each other."

And in the Bach he resolves "that there is some support for their words from that which we learned<sup>5</sup>

they brought before him matzah and lettuce and charoset and two cooked dishes even though charoset is not a commandment Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says it is a commandment and it is difficult in what do they disagree since all agree that one must bring charoset what difference is there if it is a commandment or not for certainly even according to Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok they do not recite a blessing over charoset even though it is a commandment as our teacher wrote<sup>6</sup>

immediately following but certainly according to the first Tanna that it is not a commandment and he brings it only because of kappa<sup>7</sup>

we require it only for maror and vegetables but according to Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok that it is a commandment a reminder of mortar<sup>7</sup>

then even for matzah we require it and since the Rambam in chapter seven<sup>8</sup>

ruled like Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok that it is a commandment<sup>9</sup>

therefore he ruled also that one dips the matzah in charoset and what the Ba'al HaManhig objected that matzah is a reminder of freedom and charoset a reminder of mortar etc. it is possible to say that our intention is to indicate through this dipping that He took us out of slavery which is from mortar that the charoset is a reminder of it to freedom that the matzah is a reminder of it."

And according to this, it must be said apparently that the Ra'avad ruled like the first Tanna that charoset is not a commandment and he does not bring it except because of kappa and we require it only for maror,

and therefore there is no place to dip matzah in charoset.

However, it is difficult to explain that the dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad is whether the halacha is like Rabban Gamliel

(that charoset is a commandment as a remembrance of the clay)

or that <pg>45</pg>

the law is like the Sages

(that it is not a commandment and it comes only because of kapa)

— for if so,

why did the Ra'avad not object to the Rambam a)

above

(in ch.7)

where there he wrote b)

explicitly that "the charoset is a commandment..

a remembrance of the mortar" — and he should have said there that it is not so,

and the law is that it is only because of kapa?

2.

At first glance it is possible to explain this with the introduction of what our master the Elder wrote in his Shulchan¹⁰

"And they instituted that there should be before him charoset at the time of reciting the Haggadah, for the charoset is a remembrance of the mortar with which our ancestors labored in Egypt etc.,

therefore it must be on the table at the time when one recounts the enslavement of Egypt",

and later in the section in its own chapter¹¹

he wrote "And one does not dip in charoset except for the sake of a commandment, for it is a remembrance of the mortar".

And it is implied from his words that there are two separate laws in charoses: a)

its bringing to the table,

that it should be before him at the time of reciting the Haggadah,

and besides this b)

the mitzvah of dipping in charoses.

That the first law,

its bringing to the table and its being on the table at the time of reciting the Haggadah,

is not related to the dipping in it,

and therefore the Alter Rebbe did not mention in the law of the bringing that it is for the sake of the dipping.

And so it is proven from what he wrote later

(in that same siman¹²)

regarding the bringing of the vegetables with all the items,

and this is his language: "It is good to arrange them before him in a bowl in a manner that he will not need to pass over the matzos, namely that the vegetables should be closer to him than the matzah, and the matzah than the maror and charoses, and the maror and charoses than the two cooked dishes,

and there are those who are not particular about the charoses and two cooked dishes whether they are close to him, since they come to the table only as a mere remembrance, the rule of 'we do not pass over the mitzvos' does not apply to them"¹³

— behold, that he equates charoses with the two cooked dishes,

that their bringing to the table is

(not for the sake of eating,

but rather)

only "as a mere remembrance",

that they should be on the table at the time of reciting the Haggadah.

And superficially, so it is also according to the opinion of the Rambam,

for in chapter 7 he wrote "the charoset is a mitzvah from the words of the scribes, a remembrance of the mortar with which they worked in Egypt etc., and they bring it on the table on the nights of Passover",

and he did not mention there regarding the dipping in it and eating it etc.,

and this is that the mitzvah is only in bringing it on the table,

and before us in chapter 8 he speaks about the matter of dipping in it.

And based on this, one can say,

that according to the opinion of the Bach, the dispute of the Sages and Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok whether charoset is a mitzvah or because of kappa is only regarding the law of dipping in charoset — but according to everyone there is a mitzvah in bringing the charoset on the table at the time of reciting the Haggadah as a remembrance of the mortar¹⁴.

And therefore the Ra'avad did not object above in chapter 7

(regarding the law of the mitzvah of bringing charoset on the table),

but only in chapter 8 — regarding the law of dipping matzah in charoset.

<pg>46</pg>

But besides that it is very forced to say that the Sages have a commandment in bringing charoses on the table

(since from the implication of their language "they brought before him matzah and horseradish and charoses and two cooked dishes even though charoses is not a commandment" it implies that they hold that there is no commandment at all in charoses&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;)

— the very explanation above

(that the dispute of the Rambam and the Ra'avad is whether the law is like the Sages or like Rabban Gamliel)

is difficult,

for if because of this the Ra'avad would not write on the words of the Rambam "this is nonsense"?

For because he ruled like Rabban Gamliel is this "nonsense"?

And therefore it seems to me,

that also the Ra'avad holds that the dipping in charoses is a commandment from the words of the Scribes in memory of the mortar according to the words of Rabban Gamliel

(and therefore he did not object to the words of the Rambam above in chapter seven,

as above),

and nevertheless the Ra'avad holds that there is no place to dip matzah in charoses.

3.

And behold, in the Tziyun P' Nifla'os¹⁶

he explained the dispute of the Rambam and the Ra'avad in a different manner,

and his language: See in the Hasagos and in the Hameh.

And behold, regarding matzah there are two reasons for the mitzvah of eating them: one as a remembrance of affliction and one as a remembrance of freedom¹⁷..

And regarding maror there is only one reason, as a remembrance of servitude¹⁸,

and charoses also as a remembrance of servitude.

And behold, in the time of the Temple certainly they dip the matzah also in charoses, but in this time, since we see that the mitzvah of remembrance of servitude is nullified, for maror in this time is rabbinic, only regarding maror they instituted as a remembrance, but regarding matzah there is no need to institute, since the reason of freedom remains in it, which is from the Torah, and thus dipping in charoses does not apply¹⁹

And in this our teacher disputes with the Ra'avad, may his memory be blessed, whether a rabbinic enactment applies where, without this, a Torah obligation applies.

And the intention of the Tziyun P' Nifla'os is

(also)

to explain that the objection of the Ra'avad is only on the law of dipping matzah in charoses in Halachah 8,

and not on the law of dipping matzah in charoses that precedes this in the Rambam,

when he speaks

(in Halachah 6)

about the law of eating matzah and maror in the time of the Temple,

and his language: "And afterwards he wraps matzah and maror together and dips in charoses etc.",

and the Ra'avad objects there only on what the Rambam wrote "wraps matzah and maror together"

(that "this is like Hillel, but in any case this order is not precise"²⁰)

but not on the dipping in charoses.

<pg>47</pg>

[And it cannot be said that what the Rambam said there "and he dips in charoses" refers only to the maror

(of the sandwich)

and not to the matzah,

for the Rambam's unqualified language "and he dips in charoses"

(and not "and he dips the maror in charoses")

indicates that he dips everything in charoses&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;.

And furthermore: the Rambam continues afterwards "and if he ate matzah by itself and maror by itself he recites a blessing on this by itself and on this by itself" — and he does not distinguish between them regarding the dipping in charoses,

that when he eats them by themselves

(and not in a sandwich)

he dips only the maror in charoses and not the matzah&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;].

And this is what is difficult for the Tzemach Tzedek in the words of the Ra'avad — why did he not object in Halakhah 6 regarding the dipping of the matzah in charoses?

And from this the Tzemach Tzedek (Tz"P"N) infers,

that in the time of the Temple, everyone agrees that they would dip the matzah in charoses,

for in the time of the Temple, the matzah also has the remembrance of poverty

(and consequently it is fitting to dip the matzah in charoses, which is a remembrance of the clay),

and the dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad is only regarding matzah in the present time,

that from the Torah the remembrance of servitude in the matzah is nullified

(for maror in the present time is not from the Torah)

and only the remembrance of freedom remains in it,

and regarding this they dispute whether there is room to say that there was a special enactment of the Sages that the matzah in the present time should also be a remembrance of servitude

(just as they enacted maror in this present time)

:

The Rambam holds that there is room for this enactment,

and therefore he holds that also in this present time the dipping of the matzah in charoses is required,

but according to the Ra'avad there is no room for a special enactment of the Sages regarding an act upon which there is

(without this)

an obligation from the Torah,

and since even without the enactment there is an obligation to eat matzah from the Torah

(a remembrance of freedom),

there is no room for the Sages to enact another matter regarding this eating,

and therefore in this present time there is no dipping of matzah in charoses.

However, its explanation according to the Rambam's method requires reasoning,

what concept is there in this enactment that there should be in matzah also a remembrance of the matter of slavery,

since they do not introduce

(through this enactment)

any new action in the actual eating of matzah

(aside from the dipping in charoset concerning which they debate),

for otherwise they are obligated in eating matzah

(unlike with maror,

that they enacted eating maror as a remembrance of slavery),

and nothing was added to matzah except an additional reason for its eating.

[And superficially it is not comparable to the examples brought in Tziyun P'nei Ne'eman there like "regarding that of Berachot..

regarding a woman who served [her husband] and saw a niddah, and in the Yerushalmi there if there is [the concept of] a light impurity alongside a severe impurity etc." — for there, through the enactment of the Sages, a new name of impurity applies

(the light impurity that is rabbinic),

and similar to this is the case in the other examples in Tziyun P'nei Ne'eman there,

but in our case, nothing was added,

superficially,

any action or application of a law upon the matzah through this enactment].

4.

And it seems to say the explanation of this at first glance,

And with the introduction of the explanation of the words of the Tzemach Tzedek mentioned above that in this time "the remembrance of servitude is nullified, maror in this time is rabbinic" — for at first glance,

That the fact that the commandment of maror is not biblical in this time is because eating maror is secondary to the paschal lamb and is not a commandment in itself²³

But is considered as accessories of the paschal lamb²⁴,

Therefore in this time when there is no paschal lamb there is no biblical commandment of maror

(And as the Rambam wrote²⁵)

— But what is the<pg>48</pg>

The proof from the fact that in this time the entire matter of remembrance of servitude is nullified?

And also in the content of the matter it is difficult to understand — for why would it be so,

That specifically in this time

(When the Holy Temple does not exist)

Should the remembrance of servitude be nullified and only the remembrance of freedom remain?

And one must say the explanation in this:

In the mitzvahs of this night there are two general obligations of remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt — the mitzvah that is in speech,

the telling of the Exodus from Egypt,

and the mitzvahs that are in action,

Passover sacrifice, matzah, and bitter herbs.

And the content of both is to make known our redemption and our freedom,

both through the telling of the Exodus from Egypt in speech,

and through the actions and obligations of this night — eating the Passover sacrifice, matzah, and bitter herbs²⁶.

And just as it is in the telling of the Exodus from Egypt in speech,

that one must begin with disgrace,

"One begins and announces that we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt and all the evil that was done to us, and concludes with the miracles and wonders that were done for us and our freedom"²⁷

— so too is it regarding the remembrance of freedom through the actions of this night,

that one must emphasize in it the greatness of the servitude and bondage from which the redemption came,

therefore one must also eat bitter herbs "because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our ancestors in Egypt"²⁸,

for only through this is the fulfillment of the commandments of freedom

(of the Passover sacrifice and matzah)

complete.

[And this is also the explanation of the matter that maror is part of the mitzvah of eating the Passover offering and is considered like the accessories of the Passover offering,

because the fulfillment of the mitzvah of eating the Passover offering "because the Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt"&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;,

is in completeness specifically together with the eating of maror because they embittered etc.].

And based on this, one can sweeten the words of the Ba"Ch

(which were brought above)

in the resolution of the difficulty of the Manhig

(that matzah is a reminder of freedom and charoses is a reminder of the mortar and how can they be joined with each other)

— "that our intention is to indicate in this dipping that He took us out from slavery which is from the mortar that the charoses is a reminder of it, to freedom that the matzah is a reminder of it",

that is to say,

that the matter of freedom and the matter of servitude are connected with each other,

because through the reminder of the servitude

(the mortar)

there is addition to the reminder of the freedom,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, took us out from servitude to redemption.

5.

And behold, the definition of the telling of the Exodus from Egypt in speech and the conduct of freedom in action are not only as a remembrance that our ancestors were slaves,

and were redeemed,

but rather that this slavery and redemption pertains to the person himself,

for just as in the telling of the Exodus from Egypt "one begins&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

and declares that we were slaves to Pharaoh..

with miracles..

that were done for us and our freedom" so too is it regarding the freedom in action,

as the Rambam wrote&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

that "a person is obligated to show himself as if he himself has now gone out from the bondage of Egypt etc. And concerning this matter the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded in the Torah&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

And you shall remember that you were a slave, meaning as if you yourself were a slave and went out to freedom and were redeemed."

And behold, the obligation of doing all the actions of this night in a manner of freedom is not only as an external sign &lt;pg&gt;49&lt;/pg&gt;

Nu,

Rather, the obligation is that through these actions a person should feel himself that he is free,

that "you have gone out to freedom and been redeemed."

And according to this it is understood that there is a difference between the time of the Temple and the time of exile: In the time of the Temple,

when the Children of Israel are in a state of freedom, then they are able to fulfill completely the obligation to show as if he himself went out from the bondage of Egypt,

even when there is the remembrance of bondage in the action through bitter herbs;

But when Israel is not on their land and are in exile,

the special act that emphasizes the servitude

(eating bitter herbs)

could cause a weakening in the memory of freedom and the feeling of freedom as proper,

since after all he is in a state of exile and servitude.

And therefore "the memory of servitude is nullified" so that it should not confuse that all actions of this night must be in a manner of freedom³².

6.

And behold, the reason for the matter that we mention the Exodus from Egypt in every generation during the time of exile even though we are in exile and servitude,

and as we say at the beginning of the Haggadah³³

"Now we are slaves" — it is,

because the servitude of Egypt was a unique servitude,

and any state of servitude and bondage of the Children of Israel is not in the category and type of Pharaoh's slaves,

the bondage of the Egyptian exile,

that the Children of Israel remained and became freed from this servitude³⁴

forever.

And it can be said that this is the difference between maror and charoses,

that both are a remembrance of servitude,

that maror is because of servitude,

and charoses is from the words of the Scribes "also because of servitude".

But the remembrance of servitude in maror pertains to servitude in general

(that all servitude has bitterness etc.),

and charoses is "a remembrance of the clay with which they worked in Egypt",

meaning that it indicates the particular servitude of Egypt³⁵.

And based on this, one can explain the dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad regarding the dipping of matzah in charoses,

and the difference in this between the time of the Temple and the present time:

In the time of the Temple,

since they are in a state of freedom,

it is possible to fulfill the commandment of remembering the bondage and redemption from Egypt in its completeness,

"And you shall remember that you were a slave, meaning as if you yourself were a slave and went out to freedom and were redeemed",

and therefore according to all opinions one dips matzah in charoset,

which indicates about this "that He took us out from slavery to freedom"

(as above from the Bach).

But in this time,

that they are in a state of "slaves",

and it is impossible to fulfill the obligation of "And you shall remember that you were a slave..

and you went out to freedom" in the ultimate perfection,

the question is if they can fulfill it at least in its part,

the fulfillment of the "And you shall remember" of the exodus from the unique bondage of Egypt

(that this exists even when they are in exile as above)

:

The Rambam holds that it is possible to fulfill it,

and therefore he dips matzah in charoset,

"to teach..

that He brought us out of slavery, which is from the mortar that the charoset is a reminder of it",

that the intention in this is the exodus from the slavery of Egypt&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

(which is hinted at in the mortar)

; and according to the Ra'avad it is not divisible and there is no redemption in halves,

and consequently,

even though he fulfills the telling of the Exodus in all its details etc. and the commandment of matzah also in this time is from the Torah,

because he must fulfill not only the telling of the Exodus but also the act of freedom,

&lt;pg&gt;50&lt;/pg&gt;

Nevertheless,

it is impossible to fulfill "And you shall remember that you were a slave..

and you went out to freedom" in deed

(in its completeness),

when he is in a state of "slaves"&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;.

[And one could say,

that this is the precise language of the Ra'avad's objection "this is vanity",

one could say that he hints in this,

that this instruction,

that one should dip the matzah in charoset because "He took us out of slavery which is from clay that the charoset is a reminder of it, for freedom that the matzah is a reminder of it" in this time,

when he is not in freedom,

is not a remembrance,

but rather in the category of "vanity"].

7.

And one could say the explanation in all this in the inwardness of the matters.

That the bondage and exile of Egypt is more severe than the other exiles is not only from the aspect of physical slavery and bondage,

the difficulty of the bondage in its simple sense,

but also

(and on the contrary — primarily)

from the aspect of "the difficulty of the bondage" in spirituality,

that the Children of Israel in Egypt were subjugated and enslaved to the "evil" of Egypt,

as is known³⁸

the interpretation of "And the Egyptians treated us badly"^*38,

that the Egyptians made us evil,

that their evil entered into us

(until the Children of Israel were immersed in the forty-nine gates of impurity³⁹,

and our Sages, of blessed memory, said⁴⁰

that at the time of the splitting of the Red Sea the attribute of justice argued: these are idolaters and these are etc.).

And the reason that the spiritual exile of Egypt is more difficult than all the other exiles — because the evil of the exile of Egypt is more severe than all the other exiles

(and as our Sages, of blessed memory, [said]⁴¹

that the Egyptians are more corrupt than all the nations,

and it is hinted in this that Egypt is called⁴²

"the nakedness of the land").

And this is not only a difference in quantity,

but rather it is an entirely different type,

for the evil of Egypt contains the general point of evil⁴³,

from which all particular matters of evil branch out

(including — all the evil in the other exiles).

And this is one of the explanations&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;

in the words of our Sages&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;

that all the kingdoms are called by the name of Egypt, because they distress Israel,

this is because the evil in Egypt is the root and source of the evil in all the other kingdoms

(and exiles),

for Egypt is the point of evil from which the particulars of evil branch out as mentioned above,

and therefore all of them are called by its name&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;.

&lt;pg&gt;51&lt;/pg&gt;

And it can be said that this matter, which is in the exile of Egypt — in which is the general point of evil — is hinted at in the matter of the charoset,

which is "a remembrance of the clay"

(and as mentioned above,

that this emphasizes that it is a remembrance of the difficulty of the servitude that is specific to the exile of Egypt specifically).

And this is the reason

(the inner)

that in charoset there are two laws

(as above sec. 2 in the words of the Rambam and the Alter Rebbe)

— the essential enactment that it is brought to the table to be before him at the time of reciting the Haggadah,

and in addition to this the mitzvah of dipping in it — which one can say correspond to the two matters in the exile and enslavement of Egypt: that there is in it a unique evil,

the totality of evil and its spread,

that it is the root of all the exiles,

which causes the spread of evil.

And based on this one can explain the difference between charoset and maror,

that regarding maror a measure of eating is stated

(an olive's bulk),

but charoset does not require a measure of an olive's bulk,

and in general no measure is stated for it⁴⁷

— because a measure indicates something composed⁴⁸

of parts and details⁴⁹,

and to reach the required quantity one needs a specific measure,

but regarding a matter that is not in the category of measure because it is in the category of a point⁵⁰

[And analogous to the prohibition of idolatry which is [forbidden] in any amount⁵¹

— because the prohibition of idolatry is not only a particular matter,

but⁵²

it is the point of the whole⁵³

(as our Sages said⁵⁴

"Whoever acknowledges idolatry is as if he denies the entire Torah"),

therefore a measure does not apply to it⁵⁵].

And similarly regarding charoset,

that since it is a remembrance of the totality of evil of Egypt, therefore it has no measure.

8.

And behold we find a second matter regarding charoset — "a remembrance of the apple"

(as it is brought in the Gemara⁵⁶

and is brought for halacha in the Shulchan Aruch of our master the elder⁵⁷),

it is a remembrance of this "that⁵⁸

they gave birth to their children there without pain..

as it is written⁵⁹

under the apple I awakened you".

For according to this explanation the obligation of charoset is a remembrance of a good thing — the virtue of Israel.

And particularly according to what the Geonim said⁶⁰

(and so it is ruled⁶¹

in the Rema and Shulchan Aruch of the Admo"r HaZaken)

that one should make charoset from fruits that are similar to the Congregation of Israel.

And according to the above

(section 7)

— one should connect the two matters,

"a remembrance of the mortar",

and "a remembrance of the apple":

It is written⁶²

"Also this opposite this God made",

from which it is understood that the opposition of the evil of Egypt to the good of Bnei Yisrael is analogous to it⁶³.

Because Egypt is the <pg>52</pg>

general point of evil,

therefore,

it opposes

(not

(only)

the particular virtues of Bnei Yisrael,

but)

the point of Judaism,

the very good of the souls of Israel.

And this is the matter of the Exodus from Egypt — which is a spiritual redemption — that the point of good in the souls of Israel was redeemed from its exile under the dominion of the evil of Egypt.

[And it can be said that this is the reason that the redemption from Egypt is an eternal redemption,

to the extent that each one is obligated to see himself as if he himself left Egypt — because through the redemption from Egypt the "essence of good" in the souls of Israel was redeemed forever from the impurity of Egypt,

in a manner that there is no longer any possibility that the children of Israel will be under the enslavement of the evil of Egypt,

meaning that the totality of the point of evil does not have the ability to enslave the point of Judaism in the children of Israel,

and consequently, in relation to the essential point in the souls of Israel,

behold, from the time they left Egypt they became "free men" forever

(that the enslavement to "evil" in the other exiles

(since the evil in these exiles is only an extension of evil,

therefore also the enslavement)

is only in the extension

(in the faculties)

of the person,

his intellect,

his emotions and the like,

but

(the essence)

of his soul, behold, it is always "in faith with Him, may He be blessed"&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;).

And it can be said that this is the content of what the Maharal said&lt;sup&gt;65&lt;/sup&gt;

that in the redemption from Egypt the children of Israel received an essential quality of free men, and the circumstance of the exile afterward does not nullify this at all].

And this is the matter that charoset is "a remembrance of the apple" — that this miracle

(the birth of the sons "without pain")

came from the essential love of the Holy One, blessed be He, for the children of Israel,

from the essence of their being Israelites and that there is in them the point of Judaism.

And based on this, one can explain that charoset has no measure

(also)

for the positive side — because the matter of charoset in the soul of a person corresponds to the point of Judaism,

the essence of the soul,

which is above measure and limit.

9.

Based on the above, it is possible to explain the two laws mentioned above regarding charoses —

(a)

its being brought to the table,

(b)

dipping

(the matzah)

in charoses —

(also)

for superiority:

The mitzvah of the actual bringing of the charoses to the table corresponds to this, that charoses is related to the point of Judaism,

(the essence)

of the soul of Israel,

whose virtue is not defined and limited by doing actual good,

but rather in its very essence it is good,

and this is expressed in that the very fact of its being on the table is the mitzvah.

But the intention is not that the point of Judaism remain by itself,

but rather that it spread and operate in all of man's powers,

that they be permeated with the point and source of good that is from the side of

(the essence)

the soul.

And this is hinted at in the second law of charoses,

the obligation to dip the matzah in it — namely,

that also in the matzah

(which indicates the revealed good in man)

the matter of charoses be felt in it.

And based on this will be understood the difference between the time of the Temple and the time of exile regarding the matter of dipping matzah in charoses — for there is a fundamental difference in the need for the action of the "charoses" between the time of the Temple and the time of exile:

In the time of the Temple, Bnei Yisrael are in a state of physical freedom — which also indicates spiritual freedom and redemption — that the Shechinah dwells in Israel,

their spiritual state of Israel is proper,

that their service of G-d is proper,

and all the powers of their soul are in a state of freedom from the evil inclination,

and all are subjugated to G-d and His service; but since the powers of man are in measurement and limitation,

man needs to reveal and draw forth the essential point in his soul,

which is above "measure"

(from form,

from measurement and limitation),

by which all his powers will be permeated with the power of self-sacrifice that comes from

(the essence)

of the soul.

And this is the content of the matter of dipping the matzah in charoses in the time of the Temple,

which brings about a state of freedom in completeness.

&lt;pg&gt;53&lt;/pg&gt;

But in the time of the exile,

when the G-dly soul is in exile and captivity under the dominion of the evil inclination and the animal soul,

if in his midos and intellect,

and all the more so when they have control over the garments of man,

in thought, speech and deed,

which are not proper — we come to the dispute of the Rambam and the Ra'avad whether the matter of dipping the matzah in charoses applies:

According to the opinion of the Rambam, even then one must dip the matzah in charoses,

and this means that one must arouse the point and essence of the soul that it shine in his faculties,

and by this he can subdue them and transform them,

that they go out from the exile and captivity in the body and the animal soul.

But the Ra'avad objects and writes "this is vanity",

for since this freedom comes only from the side of the point of his soul that "even at the time of sin it was in faith with him"⁶⁴,

but his faculties as they are in themselves are in straits and captivity of the evil inclination,

this is not a substantial action in his faculties,

but only in a manner of "vanity",

which has no permanence.

Yud.

And behold, the question and inquiry is only regarding the situation of Israel in the past.

But in the footsteps of Moshiach, after all the decrees and forced conversions, may G-d spare us, and after the enormous multitude of Torah and mitzvos — to merit Israel

Certainly and simply that the Children of Israel have been refined with refinement after refinement,

And each and every one of the Children of Israel is worthy to be a free person in essence and also in the revealed powers and also in his business dealings,

And even to a free person literally,

In actual deed.

And may it be His will that in this Nissan the promise of our Sages of blessed memory be fulfilled

In Nissan they are destined to be redeemed,

And in a state of free people simply "We will thank

You a new song

(masculine language

for our redemption and for the ransom of our soul".

(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Acharei and Shabbos Parshas Acharei, 5746)