לֹא־תֹאכַ֤ל עָלָיו֙ חָמֵ֔ץ שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִ֛ים תֹּֽאכַל־עָלָ֥יו מַצּ֖וֹת לֶ֣חֶם עֹ֑נִי כִּ֣י בְחִפָּז֗וֹן יָצָ֙אתָ֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם לְמַ֣עַן תִּזְכֹּר֔ אֶת־י֤וֹם צֵֽאתְךָ֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם כֹּ֖ל יְמֵ֥י חַיֶּֽיךָ׃
Tu ne dois pas manger de pain levé avec ce sacrifice; durant sept jours tu mangeras en outre des azymes, pain de misère, car c’est avec précipitation que tu as quitté le pays d’Égypte, et il faut que tu te souviennes, tous les jours de ta vie, du jour où tu as quitté le pays d’Égypte.
Bnei Yissaschar
A Tour in the Orchard
Sermons found in my writings that I presented on Shabbat HaGadol [the Shabbat preceding Pesach], according to the the ways of the orchard [pardes, which is made of letters that form an acrostic for the four levels of interpretation — the simple, the hermeneutic, the hinted and the esoteric]. That is why I have called it A Tour in the Orchard. The first sermon is one I presented still in the days of my youth:
Shmuel said, "The bread of affliction [lechem oni] (Deuteronomy 16:3), [bread over] which one answers [onim] matters." It was likewise taught [in a baraita], "Lechem oni is bread over which one answers many matters. Alternatively, leḥem oni is written [in such a way as to spell out], ani [a poor person]. Just as it is the manner of a poor person to eat a piece of bread [and not a loaf], so too, here [he should use] a piece. Alternatively, just as the manner of a poor person is that he heats the oven and his wife bakes [quickly], so too here; he heats the oven and his wife bakes." (Pesachim 116a-b) Behold that Tur, Shulchan Arukh, and all the later authorities decided like all of these variations. That means, like Shmuel and all of the first teaching in the baraita — that we answer matters over it, which is why they determined that there is a need to bring back the [seder] plate with the matzah when we recite the Haggadah — and all of the later teaching, specifically [to use] a piece for the eating of the matzah that is commanded. But we should wonder about Rambam, who wrote explicitly that it is not necessary to bring back the plate until he says, "this matzah" [after the main discussion in the Haggadah]. It follows that he holds that reciting the Haggadah need not be over the matzah. If follows [further] that he does not reason like Shmuel and the first variation in the baraita. So he holds that the central variation is the later one, the precise inference that it is written [in such a way as to spell out], the bread of a poor person: Just as it is the manner of a poor person to eat a piece of bread, etc. Accordingly, he brings this teaching from the verse about the law of [eating] a piece. But behold, on account of what did he push off the words of Shmuel, and especially since Rabbi Akiva, in the chapter [entitled] Kol Sha'ah, has the same position? And likewise, the baraita here in the first variation. And behold I saw that [the author of] Beit Chadash, may his memory be blessed, wrote in Section 473 [on Tur, Orach Chaim 473], that Rambam holds that that which Shmuel said, and also in the baraita, that we answer, etc. is not exact. It is that [the discussion] should be at the time of the engagement with the eating of matzah. That means, on this night, that is when we are answering and recounting the matter of the exodus. But these words are not understood by me, the small one. As if you are to think that Rambam held like this, Rambam should have hence brought this verse as a proof, the bread of affliction, over which one answers, etc., like he brought this verse as a proof for the law of the piece. And even if we say that that which Shmuel said that we answer over it is not exact, but rather to make us understand that it is necessary to recite the Haggadah on the night of eating matzah; behold we do not need to learn that from the bread of affliction! They brought a complete verse in a braita in the Haggadah, "In order that you will remember, etc. For the sake of this (Exodus 13:8). I didn't say 'for the sake of this,' except [that it be observed] when [this] matzah and bitter herbs are resting, etc. [meaning, on the night of the fifteenth]." Hence we need to say that Shumuel meant exactly over [the matzah] and came to teach us this novelty that the Haggadah must be exactly over it. That is, the matzah should be visible, close to him, at the time of reciting the Haggadah. So the question on the Rambam returns: Why did he not decide this way, and just the opposite, decide that there is no need to bring back the plate?
Sermons found in my writings that I presented on Shabbat HaGadol [the Shabbat preceding Pesach], according to the the ways of the orchard [pardes, which is made of letters that form an acrostic for the four levels of interpretation — the simple, the hermeneutic, the hinted and the esoteric]. That is why I have called it A Tour in the Orchard. The first sermon is one I presented still in the days of my youth:
Shmuel said, "The bread of affliction [lechem oni] (Deuteronomy 16:3), [bread over] which one answers [onim] matters." It was likewise taught [in a baraita], "Lechem oni is bread over which one answers many matters. Alternatively, leḥem oni is written [in such a way as to spell out], ani [a poor person]. Just as it is the manner of a poor person to eat a piece of bread [and not a loaf], so too, here [he should use] a piece. Alternatively, just as the manner of a poor person is that he heats the oven and his wife bakes [quickly], so too here; he heats the oven and his wife bakes." (Pesachim 116a-b) Behold that Tur, Shulchan Arukh, and all the later authorities decided like all of these variations. That means, like Shmuel and all of the first teaching in the baraita — that we answer matters over it, which is why they determined that there is a need to bring back the [seder] plate with the matzah when we recite the Haggadah — and all of the later teaching, specifically [to use] a piece for the eating of the matzah that is commanded. But we should wonder about Rambam, who wrote explicitly that it is not necessary to bring back the plate until he says, "this matzah" [after the main discussion in the Haggadah]. It follows that he holds that reciting the Haggadah need not be over the matzah. If follows [further] that he does not reason like Shmuel and the first variation in the baraita. So he holds that the central variation is the later one, the precise inference that it is written [in such a way as to spell out], the bread of a poor person: Just as it is the manner of a poor person to eat a piece of bread, etc. Accordingly, he brings this teaching from the verse about the law of [eating] a piece. But behold, on account of what did he push off the words of Shmuel, and especially since Rabbi Akiva, in the chapter [entitled] Kol Sha'ah, has the same position? And likewise, the baraita here in the first variation. And behold I saw that [the author of] Beit Chadash, may his memory be blessed, wrote in Section 473 [on Tur, Orach Chaim 473], that Rambam holds that that which Shmuel said, and also in the baraita, that we answer, etc. is not exact. It is that [the discussion] should be at the time of the engagement with the eating of matzah. That means, on this night, that is when we are answering and recounting the matter of the exodus. But these words are not understood by me, the small one. As if you are to think that Rambam held like this, Rambam should have hence brought this verse as a proof, the bread of affliction, over which one answers, etc., like he brought this verse as a proof for the law of the piece. And even if we say that that which Shmuel said that we answer over it is not exact, but rather to make us understand that it is necessary to recite the Haggadah on the night of eating matzah; behold we do not need to learn that from the bread of affliction! They brought a complete verse in a braita in the Haggadah, "In order that you will remember, etc. For the sake of this (Exodus 13:8). I didn't say 'for the sake of this,' except [that it be observed] when [this] matzah and bitter herbs are resting, etc. [meaning, on the night of the fifteenth]." Hence we need to say that Shumuel meant exactly over [the matzah] and came to teach us this novelty that the Haggadah must be exactly over it. That is, the matzah should be visible, close to him, at the time of reciting the Haggadah. So the question on the Rambam returns: Why did he not decide this way, and just the opposite, decide that there is no need to bring back the plate?
Sefat Emet
“And you should know that I am Hashem your God who takes you out…” (Exodus 6:7). This is a promise that they will know that Hashem took them out from the land of Egypt. And this is the reason for the entire exile, that a person should know that from his side he is set to be in exile. And this is the practice for every person from Israel. Similarly I heard from my father, my master, my teacher and mentor, whose memory should be a blessing, that if a person truly knew that everything is from Hashem, they would not hide from him anything, and all the hiddenness is so that it will not seem like it is from Him, and the words of the wise are grace. And a person needs to know, even during a time of favor when he has a little bit of clinging, with all that, it cannot be forgotten that he is set, from his side, for any sin and iniquity. Only with the help of Hashem. And this is what is written, “so that you will remember the day that you left Egypt all the days of your life” (Deuteronomy 16:3), meaning even when he is clinging to the living God. And similarly the Sages wrote that this comes to include the days of the messiah, which is a good time, when the evil inclination is not in control. Nevertheless, he has to remember well, that if not for His mercy we would still be in Egypt. As it is written, “if He hadn’t taken us out… we would still be enslaved…” (Passover Haggadah). And this Hashem wanted to ingrain in Israel at the time of the exile, that they should know that all this was so that they would know after the entire redemption and after the receiving of the Torah, that Hashem took them out of Egypt. And this is what it says by the Sabbath, “a remembrance for the exodus from Egypt” (Kiddush for Friday night), for it is a day of rest, and a person must know that it is from Hashem. And therefore, every day we mention the exodus from Egypt before the unification of krias Shema to know that if not for His mercy we would be in Egypt. And through making this truly clear, every day we leave from the meitzar (straits - same root as Mitzrayim which means Egypt) and we are able afterwards to accept the yoke of Heaven. And we say, “You brought us out from Egypt and You redeemed us from the house of slavery” (Morning Prayers). It seems that the explanation is that there were two things: the hard work of the slavery, and also that they were truly under the hand of Egypt. And it is written in the holy Zohar, that as long as a person has a different yoke, he cannot accept the yoke of Heaven. This is why slaves are exempt from accepting the yoke of Heaven. And therefore, after the exodus from Egypt we accept the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven. And so too it is written, “and I will take out…” and then afterwards “and I will take you to Me as a nation…” (Exodus 6:6-7), as we said above. [Even so, after this he should also know that if not for His mercy we would be in Egypt, and this is why we mention also after krias Shema the exodus from Egypt and redemption. And afterwards we can come through that to prayer.]
Avodat Yisrael
In the gemara at ohr to the 14th we search for chametz I already explained that the chametz is the yetzer hara [inclination to selfishness] as the Rambam explained that chametz comes from the expression for stealing, from the verse (Isaiah 1:17) 'aid the wronged', and therefore chametz alludes to the yetzer hara, since whoever goes according to the advice of the yetzer hara steals from their [soul] root. Therefore one needs to burn the chametz on erev Pesach and to make preparations so that the great holiness that is revealed in night of Pesach will infused itself upon oneself, since Pesach comes from the expression leaped and skipped because in all festivals holiness does not come to a person in one moment, a person needs to continue the holiness with the prayers of Night, Morning and Afternoon. But on Pesach, the holiness comes to a person in one moment, like the expression to skip, as we explained, and therefore there is the need for preparations, since even though the shining light comes, even though it does come, a person needs to cleanse oneself so as to be able to receive the shining light. For example,the sun, even though it shines strongly, the windows need to be open, because if they are closed the sun cannot shine within the house. And in all festivals one needs to continue the holiness on oneself, through the prayers, as the verse says 'that you will call them in their time, a holy convocation' (Leviticus 23:2) - that is one needs to call [to convocate] the holiness. But on Pesach the shining light needs to come in one moment, because 'in haste you came out of Egypt'(Deuteronomy 16:3) Chipazon [haste] its letters are chet"peh [and] zayin"nun, that is to say all the holidays the holiness comes from the Holy One as male [zayin] and female [nun], groom and bride; that is, the more the bride (the people of Israel) adorns herself all the more the groom (the Holy One) comes closer and closer to her. But on Pesach, because Israel needed to get out from Egypt, because were they to stay there for yet another moment they would not have been able to get out of there, and this is why the redemption needed to be in haste [chipazon] that is to say covered [from chupah] from the way of the male [zayin] to the female [nun], so the shining light comes in a skip and a leap but regardless [that fact] obviously a person needs to prepare oneself, as explained above in the simile of the sun and the windows.