The Geder of Mitzvas Charoses

The Geder of Mitzvas Charoses

The Mishnah (Pesachim 114a) records a dispute between Chachamim and R’ Eliezer B”R Tzadok. Chachamim assert that charoses is not a mitzvah, while REBRT posits that it is a mitzvah.

The Gemara (ibid. 116a) cites an apparent dispute between R’ Levi and R’ Yochanan. R’ Levi states that charoses is zecher la’tapuach (the unique relationship between Hashem and Am Yisroel signified by tachas ha’tapuach orratich in Shir HaShirim, and the miraculous and painless births of the nashim tzidkaniyos in Egypt under apple trees [see Rashi and Tos. ad loc.]). R’ Yochanan, however, states that charoses comes zecher la’tit (the mortar used in the construction in Egypt; see Tos. ad loc. for a third zecher). Abaye then explains how the making of the charoses should reflect both the aspect of the tapuach and the aspect of the tit.

In the Peirush HaMishnayos the Rambam states that according to REBRT one makes a berachah on the eating of charoses, but that the halachah does not follow REBRT.

In Hil. Chametz U’Matzah 7:11, however, the Rambam writes that charoses is a mitzvah Me’Divrei Sofrim, that it is zecher la’tit, that therefore it is made is a manner that reflects the process by which tit is produced, and that therefore it is brought on the table on Pesach eve. The Lechem Mishneh asks the obvious question, that it would seem that the Rambam here rules according to REBRT, contradicting his ruling in the Peirush HaMishnayos. Moreover, the Rambam does not mention any berachah here, and thus seems to contradict his other assertion in the Peirush HaMishnayos - that if charoses is a mitzvah, it is associated with a berachah (see Rabbeinu Manoach to Hil. CuM 7:11 and the Tur, OC #475 for the reason there is no berachah on charoses).

The question is, obviously, what happened between the Rambam’s perspective in the Peirush HaMishnayos and his ruling in the Yad.

The Harerei Kedem (RYBS) 2:94, on the basis of a girsa in the Mordechai, Hil. Seder Shel Pesach and the Bigdei Yesha (loc. cit. #19) posits that according to REBRT’s understanding, one would have to eat a kezayis of charoses, because it is a mitzvah of achilah, while according to the Rambam’s definition of the mitzvah is only that one needs to place charoses on the table, not to eat it. It is only since the charoses is already on the table that the Rambam rules in Hil. CuM 8:2,6,8 that the karpas, matzah and morror are all dipped in charoses, so that “she’lo tihyeh biaso biah reikanis.”

Hence, continues the Harerei Kedem, according to the Rambam’s new definition in the Yad of the mitzvah of charoses, there is no berachah because it is not a mitzvas achilah.

However, according to the Harerei Kedem, the Rambam in the Yad rules in accordance with REBRT, and thus reneges on his ruling in the Peirush HaMishnayos. Originally the fact that we do not eat a kezayis nor make a berachah on the charoses led him to believe that halachah must be in accordance with Chachamim, but when he “realized” that one could define the mitzvah as one of placing the charoses on the table, he decided to rule in accordance with REBRT, as the Gemara cites Amoraim who argue concerning his position, thus indicating that they held that the halachah followed REBRT’s position.

It is obvious how difficult it is to accept that the Rambam completely reversed his position from the Peirush HaMishnayos to the Yad. It is also very difficult to accept that the Rambam would actually rule in accordance with REBRT over Chachamim.

V’asher al kein yeira’eh lomar that the Rambam does rule, in fact, in accordance with Chachamim. The Rambam - both in the Peirush HaMishnayos and the Yad - is consistent in this respect. His position is that this, in and of itself, was the machlokes between REBRT and the Chachamim - whether the mitzvah of charoses is a mitzvas achilah or a mitzvas hava’ah. The nafka mina is, of course, whether there is a berachah on the charoses or not: If the mitzvah is one of achilah, then of course it follows that it should have its own berachah. But if it is a mitzvah of hava’ah, it is no different than the other mitzvos hava’ah of the Seder - viz., the zero’a and beitzah - upon which no berachah is made.

But why, then, does the Rambam require all these dippings in charoses? Let the charoses just sit on the ke’arah like the zero’a and beitzah?

As far as this point is concerned, we must preface an answer with another question: Why does the Rambam only cite the tit aspect of the charoses, and not its tapuach aspect?

It seems that the omission may best be explained if we understand the Rambam to hold that the zecher aspect of the charoses is actually the subject of a dispute between R’ Levi and R’ Yochanan. Evidently, since the halachah normally follows the views of R’ Yochanan, here too the Rambam ruled in accordance with R’ Yochanan.

And, indeed, the difference of opinion between R’ Levi and R’ Yochanan is substantial: According to R’ Levi the zecher is of the yeshuah - the Chasdei Hashem already manifest in the unique tapuach relationship of Hashem and the Bnei Yisrael while the latter were yet enslaved in Egypt. According to R’ Yochanan, OTOH, the zecher is of the avdus - the sufferings of the slavery itself.

With this premise in mind, we may readily understand all the tibbulim in the charoses very well. To begin with, the Rambam has the karpas dipped in charoses. Our minhag, OTOH, is to dip the karpas in salt-water. Indeed, Hagahos Maimonios, Hil. CuM 8:3 cites several Rishonim who forbade dipping the karpas in charoses. What is the nekudas ha’machlokes?

One of the cited Rishonim who forbade dipping karpas into charoses is Rabbeinu Yechiel (he calls such conduct a minhag shtus!). The same Rabbeinu Yechiel, cited in the Hagahos Maimonios, Hil. CuM 7:9 emphasizes that the recipe of the charoses must reflect the reason given by the Yerushalmi - that it is zecher l’dam - the first makkah, also a zecher of yeshuah.

It is evidently for this reason that RY forbids the dipping of the karpas in charoses: The karpas’s dipping is meant to be zecher l’avdus. It is therefore our minhag to use salt-water, zecher to the tears of Bnei Yisrael while they worked as slaves. The zecher l’yeshuah aspect of charoses runs directly counter to that symbolism, and therefore charoses cannot be used.

However, according to the Rambam, charoses is only zecher l’avdus. It is therefore, in fact, appropriate to dip the karpas in the charoses. It is much for the same reason that the marror is dipped in charoses.

It remains, however, to understand why the Rambam has the matzah dipped in charoses. The question is compounded by the further question posed by the Hararei Kedem 2:95: Why does the Rambam not have the Korban Pesach (Hil. CuM 8:7) or Afikoman (ibid. 8:9) dipped in charoses? (His answer is that both the Korban Pesach, and the Afikoman, as a zecher l’KP, must be eaten “l’mashchah v’l’gedulah - in a princely manner, and thus by themselves, without any condiments.)

But according to our explanation, the distinction is simple and self evident: Korban Pesach is a zecher l’yeshuah. Hence, it would be inappropriate to dip it in charoses, which is zecher l’avdus. As far as the matzah is concerned, however, it inherently commemorates both the avdus, as lechem oni; and the yeshuah, as the food made in haste as the Bnei Yisrael sped from Egypt.

The two times we eat the matzah represent, respectively, the two aspects of its zecher. As the Rambam writes explicity (Hil. CuM 8:6), the Motzi Matzah is zecher l’avdus - and that is why we use a broken piece of matzah, because a poor person is accustomed to a broken piece of bread. It is therefore appropriate to dip the Motzi Matzah in charoses.

But the Afikoman, just like the KP it represents, is zecher l’yeshuah (which is doubtless why its taste is supposed to linger...). It is obvious, then, that according to the Rambam, it cannot be dipped in charoses.

Tein l’Chacham v’yechkam od...

Gan Eden as Allegory

An old posting on a recurring topic:

I certainly do not claim to have done exhaustive research, but I would
like to present what I have found concerning Gan Eden account as
allegory.

In the first place, there is no source that I could find that holds that
the whole of the Gan Eden account is allegory. Such as opinions
concerning an allegorical interpretation exist, they pertain only to the
nature of the "Nachash", the serpent in the story. The opinion that the
serpent was not a real live creature, while distinctly a minority view,
is the view of the Sfornu on the episode (Bereishis 3:1) with the
serpent and the "Efodi" Commentary on the Moreh Nevuchim (Ibn Tibbon
edition, II:30, pp. 51-52).

In my opinion, this is clearly not the Rambam himself's position, and I
invite readers to peruse the Moreh themselves (p. 356 in the Pines
English translation).

I note that the Abarbanel mentions that the Rambam himself holds the
episode allegorical, but he clearly was influenced by the Rambam's
commentators, whom he calls the Rambam's "friends."

The Abarbanel himself, however, is critical of the Rambam (according to
his understanding of him). The Abarbanel, in fact, uses reasoning that I
used in my previous postings: It is incorrect to take texts that the
Torah conveys as actual factual description and interpret them
allegorically! He does give some novel interpretations of the events in
Gan Eden, but all true to a factual perspective.

The Sfornu's view does have legitimacy, however, because it has a source
in Chazal:

"And the serpent: Rabbi Yitzchak said, this is the yetzer hara [evil
inclination]. R. Yehuda said, the serpent was an actual serpent. They
came befor Rabbi Shimon [b. Yochai]. He told them, certainly both
opinions are one. The serpent was Samael and he appeared on [in?] the
serpent, and the visage of the serpent is that of the Satan and all is
one..."

(Zohar Chadash 35b; Torah Sheleima vol. 2 p. 252) (readers not familiar
with that work should understand that it is an exhaustive, comprehensive
and encyclopediac compilation of all Chazals and most Rishonim and many
Acharonim on Torah she'bi'ktav)

(We see, BTW, from the Zohar Chadash that those that equate the serpent
with the evil inclination thus need not dismiss its actual existence,
but rather see it as "evil incarnate" (see the Nefesh HaChaim 1:6 in the
note there).

Now, to me it seems quite clear that R. Shimon b. Yochai rejected R.
Yitzchak premise that it was only the yetzer hara and R. Yehuda's
premise that it was only an actual serpent, but rather explained to them
that it was both. Nevetheless, the Sfornu is perhaps entitled to adopt
the opinion of R. Yitzchak.

I could not find any Chazal or Rishon that takes the rest of the account
of Gan Eden as allegorical. Indeed, the Ramban in his commentary 3:22
and in the "Toras HaAdam" (Kisvei Ramban vol. 2 p. 295 in the Mossad
HaRav Kook edition) takes great pains to stress that Gan Eden and all
the events that occured therein actually existed in this world, and that
references to a spiritual Gan Eden in Chazal, refer to a parallel
spiritual realm that also really exists, and that the events that
transpired in Gan Eden below also transpired in that Gan Eden on high.

Again, I only checked Rishonim at my ready disposal, but these seem
pretty clear. Rabbinu Bechayei takes the view of the Ramban, of
course.The Ibn Ezra as well is adamantly opposed to allegorical
interpretation (See Nechama Leibowitz's "Iyunim" p. 14 as well). So is
R. Sa'adia Gaon.

So far the Sfornu is all I found. Bear in mind: a) that he too takes
the rest of the Gan Eden account as literal; b) that he was not adverse
to the surreal (see his link of "Tumah" and demons in his "Kavanos
HaTorah"; c) the Sfornu himself weaves in and out of the allegory in
3:14. The last point causes me to wonder if the Sfornu is actually
engaging here in exegesis - perhaps this is actually homiletics?

Yet, be that as it may, the Sfornu only makes this jump here where he
can cite verses from Nach (and where we find basis in Chazal) in which
the tern "Nachash" is used as an express allegory for the Evil
Inclination and the Power of Fantasy. The Sfornu certainly did not take
the Flood as allegorical - there is no basis for that, even according to
the Sfornu's non-mainstream approach here. Thus, although according to
Tradition, as previously mentioned by other MJ posters, there is
precedent - albeit slim - for an "allegorical" interpretation of a
highly specific aspect of the Gan Eden account, there is no such
tradition in the case of the Flood.

B'trei zuzei

Not great, but neverhteless, al derech ha'tzachus v'ha'daf:

Why does the Ba'al Haggadah state that the chad gadya was purchased b'trei zuzei?

Because in Berachos 44b we see that even though a gadya bar zuza that is shamen v'tov may still be considered small enough to be b'geder kol kattan maktin.

Erev Pesach she'chal b'Shabbos

A relatively new sefer, Shalmei Moed, a collection of RSZA's writings and statements on the various Yomim Tovim cites RSZA from Sefer Erev Pesach she'chal b'Shabbos 21:5:

And in terms of seudah shelishis on Erev Pesach when it occurs on Shabbos, since it is permitted to eat crushed matzo [meal] that has been cooked or fried, it is also permitted to eat cake baked from crushed mazto meal that does not have tzuras ha'pas [the form of bread]. I believe it must be stressed that baked cake, even if it is mostly oil, eggs and sugar and only partly flour, is nevertheless not the same as cooked crushed matzo [kneidlach], for the cake has the definition of pas ha'ba'ah b'kisanin, so that if one is koveia seudah upon it, washing, HaMotzi and Birkas HaMazon are required.

In the Yalkut Yosef, I do not have it here now to cite chapter and verse, ROY notes that even those who have the minhag not to eat gebrokts on Pesach may eat gebrokts on Erev Pesach.

Setting the Table for the Seder

The Shulchan Aruch writes that one’s table should be set from before nightfall so as to begin immediately [not this year! – since that would be hachanah on Shabbos for after Shabbos], and the Maharam Chagiz cites a tradition to set the table for the Seder three days ahead of time (in commemoration of the korban pesach, which was set aside and checked for three days prior to its sacrifice – including the day of the sacrifice, four days altogether). The Shulchan Aruch also writes that one should put his best and most ornate vessels on the table for the Seder. And, although the Shulchan Aruch would seem to indicate that it is the vessels needed for the Seder that should be the best and most ornate, the Maharil states that one who has nice vessels received from a non-Jew as collateral on loan should place them on the table – from which it may be deduced that even vessels that are not necessary for the meal should be placed on it if they are particularly nice.

R’ Hillel of Kalamai would adorn the Seder table with all the manuscripts he had written, saying that King David has taught us that Torah is more precious than thousands of gold and silver coins, and that, therefore, in putting his seforim on the table, he performed the act of adorning the Seder table in an even more effective way!

(Minhag Yisroel Torah 472:2)