json/Liturgy/Haggadah/Commentary/Naftali Seva Ratzon on Pesach Haggadah/English/Rabbi Mark Greenspan.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Naftali Seva Ratzon on Pesach Haggadah",
    "versionSource": "http://www.oceansidejewishcenter.org/",
    "versionTitle": "Rabbi Mark Greenspan",
    "status": "locked",
    "license": "CC-BY",
    "versionNotes": "",
    "shortVersionTitle": "Rabbi Mark Greenspan, 2007-2017",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "נפתלי שבע רצון על הגדה של פסח",
    "categories": [
        "Liturgy",
        "Haggadah",
        "Commentary"
    ],
    "text": {
        "Kadesh": [
            [
                "<b>Biur Hametz: Angels and Human Beings</b> Two questions arise regarding the removal of <i>hametz</i>: What is the purpose of the <i>mitzvah</i> of this ritual and why do we make the declaration for the removal of<i> hametz </i>in Aramaic? Shouldn’t the declaration be in Hebrew, just like the blessing?<br>We must preface our answer with a statement in <i>Midrash Rabbah</i>. The <i>Midrash </i>tells us that on <i>Yom Kippur</i>, when Sama’el sees that Israel is without sin<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since we abstain from all bodily pleasures and spend our day in prayer and fasting we are without any possibility for sin!</i>, he immediately begins to praise them: “Master of the Universe: Is there any other people in the world who stand at attention before You like angels and is as pure as angels?” On <i>Yom Kippur </i>Sama’el acknowledges that just as angels have no evil inclination so too, once a year on <i>Yom Kippur </i>neither does Israel; just as angels stand at attention<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Hebrew word is <i>kefitzah</i>, literally jumping. When we say the <i>keddushah </i>we hop up and down on the balls of our feet and say <i>kadosh kadosh kadosh!!</i></i> before God, so does Israel. This <i>Midrash</i> suggests that while Sama’el came to accuse Israel, he wasn’t able to do so he praised them instead. This is quite surprising: what spirit overcame Sama’el that is he changed to accusation to advocacy? He could have simply remained silent rather than praising them.<br>The sages of truth<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The sages of truth is a term commonly used for <i>Kabbalah</i></i> explain that there is a question concerning Israel’s status vis-à-vis the angels. Is Israel’s status higher or lower than the angels? On the one hand the souls of Israel emerge from the world of <i>beriah,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There are four levels of creation in <i>Kabbalistic</i> thought: First level, <i>atzilut </i>– emanation, Second level <i>beriah</i> – third level creation, <i>yetzira</i>h – formation and the fourth level, <i>assiyah,</i> the making</i> </i>creation or the throne of glory, while the angels emanate from the world of <i>yetzirah</i>, formation.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Another sign of Israel’s superior status as a creation of <i>beriah</i>, the second level of creation, rather than <i>yetzirah,</i> the third level of creation, is that Israel is allowed to mention God’s name after two words: <i>Baruch attah <b>Adonai</b></i><b>, </b>while angels mention God’s name after three words in the <i>Kedushah: Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh <b>Adonai</b></i>….</i> On the other hand, angels attain a higher spiritual level since they have no evil inclination, unlike human beings who do. Despite Israel’s lofty status, the angels are not jealous of Israel because they know that Israel was created with an evil inclination, thereby lowering their status in relation to the angels<i>.</i> On <i>Yom Kippur</i>, however, when Israel is ‘without sin’ the angels have reason to be jealous of Israel. This is the one time of year Israel overcomes its evil inclination. We can now understand why Sama’el chooses to praises Israel on <i>Yom Kippur</i>. The evil one is not permitted to accuse Israel on <i>Yom Kippur</i> so instead he begins to praise Israel so the angels will become jealous of them. He reminds the angels that on this day Israel is even superior to the angels!<br>We can now understand why we recite the declaration for removing <i>hametz </i>in Aramaic. When we remove <i>hametz</i> from our homes we also remove the evil inclination from our bodies. Similar to Yom Kippur, we become more like the angels at this time through this ritual. We are concerned with making the angels jealous as they are on Yom Kippur so we recite the declaration in Aramaic, a language which the angels cannot understand!"
            ],
            [
                "<b>Kadesh U’r’chatz: Atonement for the Garden of Eden</b> There are good reasons for the customs of Israel which are based on the <i>Torah</i>. The things we do are surprising for those who lack knowledge and an understanding of what makes this night different from all other nights. Flour, wine, meat for the Passover offering and festive offering and apples and nuts for <i>charoset </i>are understood by the sages of truth to be a way of ridding Israel of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden. We seek to repair through that which we sinned.<br>There is a controversy about whether the fruit which our Adam ate was from the vine or wheat or fig tree or an <i>etrog </i>tree. Since we do not know with which one he sinned, we consume all of them as part of the<i> seder</i>. For those who say it was from the vine, we drink four cups of wine – through this <i>mitzvah</i> we repair the sin of the Garden of Eden, wine for vine. Since there is a question if it was wheat that they ate, we make <i>matzah</i> from fine flour. Since there is still a doubt, we make <i>charoset </i>from apples since the etrog is sometimes also referred to in Hebrew as a <i>tapuach</i>, an apple<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Song of Songs 7:9 “and the scent of your breath like apples” The Aramaic translation of the Bible understands the word apples to be an Etrog.</i>. Some people add figs to the <i>charoset</i> for this reason as well, in order to remove the sin of the tree of knowledge. In <i>Midrash Rabbah</i> we learn that afterwards Adam and Eve ate all types animals; therefore we use the lamb for the Passover offering and a cow for the festive offering.",
                "We eat the Passover offering roasted and we eat it leaning to one side is a reference to the fact that Adam used to lean in the garden of Eden while the angels roasted meat for him and chilled the wine. The serpent saw this and was jealous of the fact the <i>Adam HaRishon </i>was free of the angel of death. The serpent knew that as long as human beings did not sin they (?) would continue to eat the roasted meat; for this reason the Passover offering must be roasted and consumed while leaning."
            ]
        ],
        "Urchatz": [],
        "Karpas": [
            [
                "Why do we eat greens? Before Adam sinned he was not permitted to slaughter animals for food in order to eat since the animals were not in need of repaire.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This seems to contradict the earlier statement. Apparently the angels could prepare meat for Adam but he could not do so for himself. One of the reasons we slaughter animals and eat them is to allow their animal soul to ascend to a higher plane of existence. The slaughtering was a kind of <i>Tikkun</i>, or repairing of the animal soul.</i> Therefore Adam only gathered vegetation for food, as the Bible tells us “the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food.” (Genesis 1) After Adam sinned, animals needed to be repaired and it was permissible for humans to slaughter them. We eat greens first, just as Adam did, and then have wine and meat as part of the Passover meal to atone for the sin in the Garden that took place afterwards.<br>Why do we call the greens <i>karpas</i>? 600,000<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>karpas</i> ends with a <i>samech </i>which has the numerical value of 60 – it represents 60x ten thousand and the remainder of the word spells <i>parkh</i>, or oppression. The word then alludes to the 60xten thousand who were oppressed in Egypt!</i> souls were affected by the sin of <i>Adam HaRishon</i>; they went down to Egypt and suffered from oppressive servitude as is hinted at by the word <i>karpas</i>. Why do we dip the <i>karpas</i> in salt water? Because the Egyptians cast the children of the 600,000 in the River, all of them were brought out of the River through the merit of Moses. Some people dip the <i>karpas</i> in vinegar; this symbolizes that their deeds were as harsh as vinegar; they went down to Egypt to be purified and to go out pure.<br>Why do we eat an egg? Just as an egg is round so too death comes around because of the deeds of <i>Adam HaRishon, </i>as it says in the <i>Torah</i>: “you shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you shall surely die.” Death shall be for generations to come. The double reference to death in this expression, <i>mot tamut</i>, “you shall surely die,” is a reference to the two temples which would be destroyed. That is why we eat bitter herbs. <i>Tisha B’av</i> always falls on the same day of the week each year as the first day of Passover. Therefore Passover is an allusion to <i>Tisha B’av</i>.<br>The nuts which are mixed in the <i>charoset </i>are an allusion to a <i>Midrash</i> which says: just as all the nuts rattle around when you take one out of the many (unlike other types of fruit), so too as a result of the sin of the one human being in the world who sinned (Adam), all of humanity suffers and becomes angry at him.<br>We add red wine to the <i>charoset</i> as an allusion to blood. When Eve ate from the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge, she experienced the first blood of menstruation;<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Adam and Eve were immortal in the Garden of Eden so that the cycles of birth were outside of their experience. Having eaten from the tree of knowledge they became mortal but also gained the possibility of giving birth. The blood of menstruation is part and parcel of this process.</i> therefore we also add a bit of red wine.<br><br>It is customary to wear a <i>kittel </i>at the <i>Seder</i>. The <i>Torah</i> says that Adam was commanded to till and tend the garden (literally to serve and to guard). Adam not only tilled the garden but offered sacrifices to God. He was like the high priest who served God in the Temple. Just as the High Priest wore four linen garments: the tunic, headdress, pants and a sash, so too we wear a <i>kittel</i> with a belt so as to separate the heart from the sinful lower parts of the body."
            ],
            [
                "<b>The Symbolism of Karpas</b> Why was it necessary to tell us that one must make a blessing on the <i>karpas boray peri ha’adamah,’</i> since we are obligated to make a blessing on any food which we consume? The reason is based on a principle of <i>Halacha</i>: for anything which would normally be improved through cooking, we say the <i>sh’hakol</i> blessing when it is uncooked and the appropriate blessing<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Reference: (missing)</i> (in this case<i> ha’adamah</i>) when it is cooked. Based on this the <i>Maharil</i> wonders why, if one uses parsley for the <i>karpas</i>, one would say <i>boray peri ha’adamah</i>? There is a great lesson to be learned from the fact that we say this blessing even though we eat it raw.<br>This is an allusion to a <i>Midrash</i>:<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Babylonian Talmud, see <i>Sotah</i> 11b for an extended development of this <i>Midrash.</i> Also see Ezekiel 16:7 which is also quoted later in the <i>Haggadah.</i></i> when the Israelite women gave birth in the fields and the Egyptian soldiers would come to kill the children, the ground would swallow up the infants. The Egyptians would then bring oxen to plow up the ground in order to find them. After they left, they broke through the ground and sprouted up like weeds, as it says “I caused thee to multiply as the plants of the field.” (Ezekiel 16:7) In order to remember this great miracle, we eat greens and recite the blessing <i>boray peri ha’adamah</i> even though it is not necessary to recite this blessing under these circumstances.<br>"
            ]
        ],
        "Yachatz": [
            [],
            [
                "We take out the middle<i> matzah,</i> break it in half and hide the broken piece for the<i> Afikomen</i>. According to the <i>Maharil,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Jacob ben Moses Mölln, Rabbi and teacher of Mayence; born about 1365; died in 1427.</i></i> we should set aside the larger piece of the broken <i>matzah</i> for the <i>Afikomen. </i>The broken middle <i>matzah</i> is an allusion to the fact that the night of the Passover was divided into two parts. It was during the first half of the night that God helped Abraham overcome the five kings who took Lot captive, and it was during the second half of the night that God performed the miracle of the Passover, striking down the first born. In the wilderness Moses called the altar that he built <i>Adonai Nisi,</i> God is my miracle is a reminder of the miracle in Egypt. This implies that we too must perform some act as a reminder of the miracle of the tenth plague; we don’t take the upper or the lower <i>matzah </i>but the middle one as a reminder of miracles in the time of Abraham and Moses.<br>We hide away the <i>Afikomen</i> as an allusion to the <i>Midrash</i> on “It was for the Lord a night of watching.” (Exodus 12:42) This means that it is set aside for watching until the final redemption which will also take place on Passover. The <i>Shach</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Shach - Rav Shabbtai ben Meir HaKohein was born in 1623 in Vilna.</i> also explains it this way; the night of Passover is divided into two parts – the first half for the miracles with which Israel was redeemed from Egypt and the second half for the future redemption. We hide the <i>Afikomen</i> for the future redemption. The broken <i>matzah,</i> then, is allusion to both sets of miracles: Abraham and Moses, and the past and future redemptions. We can now understand why the <i>Maharil</i> said that the <i>Afikomen </i>must be a larger piece of <i>matzah</i>. The sage taught that after the final redemption, the exodus from Egypt will become secondary while the final redemption will become essential – the <i>Afikomen </i>is larger for this reason. The piece of <i>matzah </i>remaining on the <i>Seder</i> plate is an allusion to the Exodus; it is smaller since in the time of the final redemption the Exodus will be of less importance as well."
            ]
        ],
        "Magid": {
            "Ha Lachma Anya": [
                [
                    "<b>Maggid, Rachzah</b> The ‘order of the <i>Seder</i>’ begins <i>kadesh u’<b>rechaz</b>...maggid<b> rachzah</b>.</i> Why do we first say <i>rachaz </i>and then <i>rachzah</i> after<i> maggid? </i>What is the significance of the extra letter <i>hay </i>at the end of the word <i>rachaz</i>? This is a way of reminding us of the significance of second washing. In point of fact, one washing should have been enough before a meal. However, there can not be any type of interruption between the time we wash and the beginning of the meal. Since the meal is preceded by the <i>maggid</i>, the telling of the Exodus as well as passages of praise, there is an interruption here. It is necessary for us to wash again before we begin the meal. The letter hay is an allusion to <b><i>h</i></b><i>aggadah <b>h</b>avay <b>h</b>esech <b>h</b>ada’at b’<b>h</b>ay:<b></b></i> “the telling is an interruption with the letter <i>hay</i>.” Each of the words in this phrase begins with the letter <i>hay</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There are five words in this phrase which begin with the letter hay – the numerical value of hay is five!!</i>"
                ],
                [
                    "The sages instruct us to remove the <i>Seder </i>plate from the table; children will wonder why we are doing this even though we have yet eaten, and they will ask questions. This is not our custom; rather we lift the plate up when we say <i>ha lachma anya </i>and afterwards we put it back on the table where it originally was. This is an allusion to the waving of the <i>omer </i>up and down in order to avoid the bad dews<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There is apparently two types of dew – good dew and bad dew which God has stored away.</i>. Why is it necessary to wave it up and down? It should have been enough to simple wave it upward since the dew comes from above. Originally<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Babylonian Talmud <i>Hagigah</i> 12b (?)</i> there was a place in the firmament in which the bad as well as the good dew dwelled. David prayed to God that only the good dews should dwell above as we see: “For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; evil shall not sojourn with You.” (Psalm 5:5) Because of David’s prayers, the wicked dew was stored down below and the dew of blessing above. So when we wave the <i>omer </i>in an upward direction it is to ask that we be blessed with the good dew, and we wave downward it is to ask that God cut off the bad dew. Passover is, of course, the time of year when the world is judged regarding the productivity of the wheat harvest. That is why it was customary to bring an <i>omer</i> of barley at this time of year to the temple. Now that we do not have an altar or a temple, our dinner table is our altar; we reenact this ceremony at the dinner table with the waving of the <i>Seder </i>plate. By lifting up the matzah along with the plate it is meant to mimic the waving of the <i>omer </i>offering."
                ]
            ],
            "Four Questions": [],
            "We Were Slaves in Egypt": [
                [],
                [
                    "<b>Mah Nishtanah</b> There are several surprising things about this passage. First, why does the child wait to ask his father questions until the pouring of second cup of wine? Why not ask the questions upon pouring the first cup of wine? If you say the reason is that he has not witnessed any differences until now, hasn’t he already watched as we dipped the <i>karpas</i>? In any case, even after the second cup is poured, he has not yet witnessed the eating of the <i>matzah</i> or the <i>maror. </i>Also the order of the statements in <i>Mah Nishtanah</i> is not in the correct order: dipping should have come first, then the eating of the <i>matzah</i> and the <i>maror.</i> And yet in the <i>Mishnah</i> in<i> Pesachim</i> it is ordered the other way around! Finally, the statement which follows the <i>Mah Nishtanah,</i> “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt…” is an appropriate answer to the final question (leaning) but not to the other questions in the <i>Mah Nishtanah.</i><br>The <i>Mishnah </i>suggests that it is precisely when the second cup of wine is poured that the child should ask; that is when the question arises, “why do we eat <i>matzah</i> on this night?” Also it was out of the first question that the second question arose, and so on with the rest of the questions. Each question inspires the next.<br>What is it about the second cup of wine that inspires the child to ask? At the beginning of the <i>Seder, </i>the perceptive child has no reason to question his parents since logically he concludes that <i>matzah</i> is associated with slavery. Since we can only eat <i>matzah</i> during the first half of the night and not after midnight, we conclude that <i>matzah</i> is a symbol of slavery. We begin the <i>Seder</i> by saying that <i>matzah</i> is ‘the bread of affliction’ further emphasizing this point. Once the second cup is poured, however, the child realizes that the <i>matzah </i>also symbolizes freedom! The four cups of wine symbolize the four promises of redemption: I will bring you out… I will save you, etc. The reason for the <i>matzah</i> is that Israelites had to leave Egypt in great haste; had they stayed in Egypt even one moment longer they would have sunk to the fiftieth level of impurity and could not be redeemed. That is why the <i>Halachah</i> is that even a little bit of <i>hametz</i> is strictly forbidden on Passover. The symbolism of the second cup (“I saved you from the impurity of Egypt”) suggests that <i>matzah </i>symbolizes freedom and the haste with which they left Egypt!<br>Now we can understand why the child does not ask his parent until the second cup is poured. He is now confused: is <i>matzah</i> a symbol of freedom or slavery? And if <i>matzah</i> is a symbol of freedom then why don’t we eat it after midnight, the hour at which Israel was freed? We do say, “why is this night (<i>Kulo</i>) entirely <i>matzah</i>? We should either eat <i>matzah</i> either the first half of the night (for slavery) or the second half of the night (to celebrate freedom).<br>This leads the child to a second question: “Why, on all other nights we dip other vegetables but tonight we dip <i>maror</i>?” Note that we don’t say “only <i>maror”</i> in the four questions just as we say “only <i>matzah.” </i>The first time we dip we use other vegetables while we use bitter herbs for the second dipping. The child sees that his father is dipping other vegetables for the first dipping and he wonder; if the <i>matzah </i>symbolizes slavery and we eat only <i>matzah,</i> why don’t we use bitter herbs both times we dip at the <i>Seder</i>? The second question, then, is a response to the first. The child wonders why we eat other vegetables for the first dipping – why don’t we eat <i>maror</i> for the first dipping since it symbolizes slavery, just like the <i>matzah</i>?<br>In the end <i>matzah,</i> is actually a symbol of freedom. Even though Israel did not leave Egypt until the next day after the Passover, the redemption began at night – that is why we eat <i>matzah </i>even during the first half of the night as a symbol of freedom and not slavery, and that is why we only dip the bitter herbs once and not both times.<br><b>Matzah and Maror:</b> Another question: if <i>matzah</i> symbolizes freedom, and <i>maror </i>the bitterness of slavery and oppression, why don’t we eat the <i>maror</i> first and the <i>matzah </i>second at the <i>Seder</i>? This would seem to support the opinion of those who believe that we should also use bitter herbs for the first dipping; that way we would taste the bitterness of slavery occurs before we eat <i>matzah,</i> a symbol of freedom. If this is the case, then the language of the second question should also have been <i>kulo maror, ‘</i>on all other nights we eat other vegetables but tonight we eat <b>only</b> maror.’<br>So why do we eat <i>maror </i>after the matzah? The reason can be found in the following verse: “In a time of good fortune, enjoy the good fortune; and in a time of misfortune, reflect: the one no less than the other was God’s doing.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ecclesiastes 7:14</i> We learn from this verse that if we remember misfortune first, it will inspire sorrow and depression even if we remember the joyful occasions afterwards. Therefore we should remember the joyful occasions first and only then reflect on the sorrowful occasions. That is why we eat the <i>matzah </i>first which reminds of our redemption and God’s kindness first at the <i>Seder </i>and only then do we eat the <i>maror.</i> That is another reason why we don’t use bitter herbs for the first dipping – this would only cause us more sorrow.<br>It is for this reason that the third question in the <i>Mah Nishtanah</i> is about dipping. The question arises, why do we dip twice? We should dip either once or three times in the <i>Seder</i>! If the reason for dipping (according to the <i>Talmud)</i> is because there is ‘poison’ in the bitter herbs, then we should only dip once since we are not using bitter herbs for the first dipping. And if, as the <i>Ma’aseh Adonai</i> suggests, the dipping has opposite meanings; one for exile, and the other redemption, then this is troubling. Having opposite meanings for the same act (dipping) is confusing. What’s more, there are those who say that we should actually dip <i>matzah</i> in the <i>charoset</i> as well in which case we are dipping three times!<br>The second dipping symbolizes slavery: we dip the <i>maror </i>and we do so in <i>charoset </i>which is a symbol of the mortar with which the Israelites made the bricks. Therefore the two aspects of the second dipping both symbolize slavery and bitterness. For the first dipping we don’t use <i>charoset </i>because we are using other vegetables rather than bitter herbs (which don’t contain poison.) We therefore dip the vegetables in salt water so that neither of these symbols represent slavery or bitterness but rather redemption. The first dipping symbolizes redemption and the second dipping slavery so that joy precedes the sorrow so as not to dilute our joyful mood at this time as we explained above.<br><b>On this night we lean</b> We can now begin to understand why the question regarding leaning follows the question of dipping.<br>The <i>Talmud</i> in <i>Pesachim </i>discusses whether we should lean for all four cups of wine or not. There is an opinion that we should lean to our side for the first two cups of wine when we tell the story of the Exodus but not for the second two cups of wine when we have already completed the story of the Exodus. There are those who say it should be the other way around: we shouldn’t lean for the first two cups since we were still slaves in Egypt whole we should lean for the second two cups for they represent the time when we are free. Nowadays we don’t follow either of these opinions but we lean for all four cups of wine.<br>Having just ascertained that we dip once as a symbol of an expression of redemption and the second time as a reminder of slavery, then why don’t we also lean for two cups of wine and not for the other two as the <i>Talmud </i>suggests, either for the first two cups or the second two cups. Rather we lean for all four cups of wine and for the <i>matzah</i> as well!!<br>The <i>Haggadah</i> answers this question by saying <i>Avadim Hayyinu</i>: We were slaves in Egypt but the Lord took us out from there. These four cups are an allusion to the fact that God did not just redeem us once but he will redeem us four times from four empires, and God will give us four cups of redemption. Therefore all of the cups deserve to be consumed while we are leaning as a symbol of freedom. This opening statement also reminds us that this is still a night of slavery and freedom (We were slaves – slavery; the Lord took us out – freedom) – and that is why we have two dippings, one for slavery and one for freedom.",
                    "<b>We Were Slaves to Pharaoh</b> The <i>Talmud</i> tells us that in telling the story of the Exodus we should begin with<i> genut,</i> disgrace, and end with <i>shevach, </i>with praise. There are two interpretations of what this means<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The other point of view is that of Sh’muel who says we should begin with “Our ancestors worshipped idols” and we end with “the omnipresent brought us closer.” Rabbi Ginzburg promises to explain Sh’muel’s point of later on.</i>. Rav says we begin with disgrace by saying, ‘We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt.’ In what sense is this ‘disgrace?’ Furthermore, why is it necessary for the <i>ba’al ha-Haggadah</i> to tell us that we, our children and children might still be slaves in Egypt; the text could have simply said: If He had not taken us out we might still be slaved to Pharaoh in Egypt?’<br>To answer these questions we must begin with a discussion of a passage in <i>Baba Kama</i>. The <i>Talmud </i>discusses a controversy between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Huna whether a person is allowed to use force to take back property which has been stolen from him or her, or if the person must go to court to retrieve the property? The <i>Talmud</i> concludes that if one is going to irrevocably lose the property, one can use force to take back one’s property. Where there is no loss, the sages disagree. Rabbi Yehudah says that if there is no loss one is obligated to go to a judge to retrieve one’s property, and Rabbi Huna is of the opinion that one may take it forcefully since one may be tempted to give up if one must be troubled by going to a judge. Ben Bag-bag states: One should not enter into someone else’s property to retrieve one’s property without the permission of the owner of the place but ‘one may break the teeth’ of the one who has one’s property if necessary to get back one’s property. This implies that one can take the law in his own hand and use force to retrieve his property.<br>We can now understand the discussion in the <i>Talmud</i> regarding the Exodus from Egypt. When God was about to drown the Egyptians in the Red Sea, Uzza, the guardian angel of the Egyptian, challenged the Holy One. God immediately called forth a case among the angels on High to decide between them. Why did Uzza wait until they reached the Red Sea to challenge the Holy One; why didn’t he challenge God while they were still in Egypt and God was about to kill the first born? And why did God convene a court case at the Red Sea? This case illustrates the law above. In Egypt there was no time to loose – if Israel had stayed in Egypt one more moment they would have been lost. God therefore took the law in His own hand and did what had to be done. Uzza knew that the law was that God did not need to convene a court to save His lost property – the people of Israel. God was therefore in His right to smite the first born in order to save the people of Israel. At the sea, Israel had already escaped the immediate threat so when Uzza challenged God, God convened a court of law.<br>We can now understand why <i>Avadim Hayyinu</i> represents ‘a beginning of disgrace’ in our telling of the story of the Exodus. It was disgraceful that the people Israel were not only slaves but servants of false gods. They were so enslaved by idolatry that they couldn’t wait any longer to leave Egypt without reaching the fiftieth gate of impurity. That is why “The Lord took us out with a strong arm” that is, with force (the death of the first born), just as one can use force to retrieve his lost property.<br>We can now understand the challenge of the <i>Rasha</i> later in the <i>Haggadah</i>. When the <i>Rasha</i> asks, “What does this service mean to you?” he is challenging the <i>Halacha</i> regarding retrieving lost property. He believes that God should have convened a court in Egypt rather than ‘taking the law into His own hand.’ But if God had done so, Israel would have been lost and unredeemed. We answer him in the same way that the Ben Bag-bag answered this question: One should try to go to a court but ‘one may break his teeth’ if there is a question of saving one’s property. That is why the answer which the <i>Haggadah</i> gives to the <i>Rasha: </i>“It is because of that which the Lord did for me…” God would take the law into His own hand for me but not for you since you are of the opinion that this is not proper. If you would have been in Egypt you would not have been redeemed – you would have sunk to the fiftieth level of impurity.”<br><b>We, our children, and our children’s children:</b> Why does the <i>Haggadah </i>speak of us being slaves for three generations: ‘Had God not taken us out of Egypt, we, our children and our children’s children would still be enslaved there.’ The <i>Haggadah </i>could have said, “Had God not taken us out, we would still be enslaved there.’ To understand this we must analyze the verse: “And they shall return here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Genesis 15:16</i> Abraham was told that his children would be subjugated in Egypt three generations; each generation, we learn, would be seventy years so that they add up to a total of two hundred ten years. The children of Esau were also obligated to serve for three generations. If only Israel paid this debt, then Israel would have had to serve in Egypt yet another three additional generations to make up for the debts of Israel and Esau. This is what the author of the <i>Haggadah</i> is telling us. We were slaves in Egypt – and had God not taken us out when He did, we would have served yet another three generations in Egypt; that is, we, our children and our children’s children would have had to serve as well.",
                    "<b>Now even if we were all wise, clever, elders and even if we were all learned in the Torah, it would still be our duty to tell the story:</b> To explain this passage we <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Pesachim</i>, chapter 10</i>must begin with a rabbinic statement: “If one is wise, his son must still ask him; if not he should ask himself. If there are two <i>Torah</i> scholars who already know the laws of Passover, they should ask one another: How is this night different from all other nights?” Why was it necessary for the <i>Torah</i> to obligate a scholar to ask questions about the Exodus? Since both scholars were familiar with the Exodus, this would seem unnecessary.<br>The answer has to do with the two-fold commandment:<i> zachor, </i>remember, and <i>shamor</i>, guard.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Referring to the Ten Commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy. The fourth commandment, regarding the <i>Shabbat</i> is phrased differently in the two versions of the Text. One says Remember the Sabbath Day and the other Guard the Sabbath Day. Since we are also told to remember the Exodus – the word ‘remember’ must have the same implications here – remember it verbally and not just mentally.</i> The <i>Mishnah</i> explains the meaning of these two terms: the word <i>zachor </i>means one should remember the Shabbat verbally, and <i>shamor</i>, one should guard it by keeping it in one’s heart. The commandment, “You shall remember the day of your going out from Egypt,”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 16:3</i> implies that one should remember the Exodus by mentioning it verbally and not just keeping it in one’s hearts. Since it is a <i>mitzvah</i>, it applies equally to all people - scholars of <i>Torah</i> as well as others.<br>But this raises yet another question. If one is obligated to verbally mention the Exodus from Egypt and not merely think about it, then one should also be obligated to recite a blessing for the performance of this commandment. One is not obligated to recite a blessing for the study of <i>Torah</i> if one merely thinks about <i>Torah</i>, but one must recite the blessing when it is recited out loud. But in the case of Passover, we are told <i>zachor</i>, which implies, to verbally mention the Exodus, so a a blessing is necessary. The statement in the <i>Haggadah,</i> then, implies that even great scholars who is familiar with the story of the Exodus can’t simply think about it; he is obligated to speak of it at length. So why don’t we recite a blessing when we perform this commandment?<br>Different answers are offered to solve this problem. First the Rif suggests that since we are obligated to mention the Exodus when we recite the <i>Kiddush</i>, it is not necessary to recite another blessing which speaks of mentioning the Exodus. One fulfills one’s obligation by reciting the<i> Kiddush.</i><br>Another reason one does not need to recite a separate blessing for the telling of the story at the Seder is that we have already mentioned the Exodus in the third paragraph of the <i>Sh’ma</i> concerning<i> tzitzit </i>– so we fulfilled the commandment of mentioning the Exodus when we recited the evening service and therefore no other blessing is necessary. Since we are obligated to mention the Exodus at night (as we learn from Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, we recite the <i>tzitzit</i> passage at night (even though we are not obligated to wear fringes) to fulfill this obligation. If we didn’t have an obligation to mention the Exodus every night then it would be necessary to have a special blessing for Passover night. Since we do, Passover night should be no different than any other night! Therefore it is not necessary to say a separate blessing on this night.<br>The <i>Tzror HaMor</i> comments that the statement in the <i>Sh’ma</i>, “You shall see it and remember all my commandments…I am the Lord your God,” <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Numbers 15:37-41</i>teaches us that we should remember the <i>Sh’ma</i> at night, and the passage “all the days of your life”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Deuteronomy 16:3</i> teaches us that we should mention it at night.<br>We can now understand why we comment, “even if we were all wise, clever, and elders….we would still be obligated to expand on the story of the Exodus.” This statement raises the question of whether we should recite the blessing. But when we say that we are obligated to expand on the Exodus we are referring to the passages above which obligate us to tell the story of the Exodus. The obligation is not just tonight but on all nights!"
                ]
            ],
            "Story of the Five Rabbis": [
                [
                    "The story which follows regarding Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Joshua and the others is an example of what the <i>Haggadah </i>just told us; that even the wise, the clever, the elders, and great scholars of <i>Torah</i> are obligated to expand on the story of the Exodus.<br>The discussion of Rabbi Elazar and the sages raises a controversy regarding a special blessing for the telling of the Exodus. According to Rabbi Elazar, who follows Ben Zoma, we do not need a special blessing because we are obligated to mention the Exodus every night. This is based on the word <i>kol</i> – <b>all </b>the days of your life. But according to the sages, who interpreted the word <i>kol</i> - <b>all</b> the days of your life as a reference to even in the time of the Messiah – there is no obligation to mention the Exodus at night and therefore we would need a special blessing on the night of Passover when we are obligated to mention it.<br>We can answer this question the same way the <i>Rash<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">acronym for Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel (1250-1328) a prominent <i>Talmudic</i> scholar, sometimes called \"the <i>Rosh</i>.\"</i> </i>answered the question regarding <i>charoset;</i> why don’t we recite a blessing over the <i>charoset. </i>He explains that we don’t recite a blessing over the <i>charoset</i> because it is secondary to the <i>maror </i>over which we do recite a blessing. In <i>Talmud Berachot </i>we find a discussion whether we will mention the Exodus after the final redemption. The sages comment that in the Messianic era, we will not leave out the Exodus from Egypt all together; it will simply become secondary to the final redemption. This is compared to a person who encounters a lion and is saved from it and then a snake and is saved from it. He begins telling people about the lion but when he is saved from the snake he tells people how he was saved from the snake. The Exodus from Egypt is similar to one who was saved from a lion and the when the Jews were redeemed from Babylonia is similar to one who was then saved from the snake. The first story of redemption becomes secondary to the second story of redemption. Therefore in our time the Exodus, as important as it is, appears secondary – and so we don’t recite a separate blessing for this redemption according to the sages.<br>In the time to come when the final redemption takes place, we will forget both of these acts of redemption and they will both be secondary to the final redemption. By the time of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, which was, of course, after the return form Babylonian the Exodus already appeared to be secondary and less important. Following the opinion of the Rosh, then, we do not recite a blessing over that which is secondary to the essential <i>mitzvah</i>. <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This has fascinating implications for our generation when we have a new story of redemption to tell – the founding of the state of Israel. Should we do more to treat this story as the essential story of redemption in our time?</i><br>Now we can understand what Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah meant when he said “It is as if I were a man of seventy years old.” Rabbi Elazar disagreed with the sages. They saw the Exodus as secondary to the return from Babylonia. They had a reason for not reciting a blessing while he did not have a good reason. When Rabbi Elazar said that he was like a man of seventy years old, he was saying that he was like those who lived before the return from Babylonia – therefore the Exodus was still essential to him and was not of secondary importance. Therefore he had to find an answer to the question of why we don’t say a special blessing before we tell the Exodus from Egypt. Ben Zoma helped solve this problem – he argued that we are obligated to mention the Exodus every night (and not just on the night of Exodus) and so it is not necessary to say a special blessing at the <i>Seder.</i>",
                    "<b>A Story of Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Joshua... </b>Why were these five sages together on <i>Seder</i> night? They sages got together to discuss the Exodus but when they reached midnight they began to debate the controversy regarding when the Passover offering should be consumed. This controversy was between Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah and Rabbi Akiva; a similar controversy can be found in the <i>Talmud </i>between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua. The question is about what time the Passover sacrifice must be consumed – by midnight or by day break. Since we now eat the <i>Afikomen </i>in lieu of the sacrifice, this question influences the time by which we must eat the <i>Afikomen</i>.<br>According to Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah (and Rabbi Eliezer) the sacrifice must be eaten before midnight; according to Rabbi Akiva (and Rabbi Joshua) the sacrifice can be consumed all night long. Each brings a different proof for his point of view. According to Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, we learn that the sacrifice must be eaten by midnight based on a<i> gezerah shavah.</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A hermeneutic rule in which we compare two verses in the bible and deduce the principle in one of them to the other based on similar language.</i> We find two verses: “You shall it the meat on this night,”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 12:8</i> and, “I passed through the Land of Egypt on this night.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 12:12</i> Just as God passed through the land at midnight so the Passover offering must be consumed by midnight. Rabbi Akiva interprets the verse: “You shall eat it in haste”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 12:11</i> as a proof text for consuming the offering all night. Just as the Israelites ate the Passover offering ‘in haste’ that is, all night long, so we can eat the sacrifice all night long. Rabbi Akiva understands <i>b’chipazon </i>as a reference to the way the Israelites were supposed to eat the offering, with their loins girded, sandals on their feet and their staff in hand.<i> B’chizpazon </i>means they were ready to go at any minute. Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah, on the other hand, understands ‘in haste’ to refer to the Egyptians. At midnight, as the God passed through the land of Egypt, the Egyptians came and pressed the Israelites to leave. The Israelites ate in haste because the Egyptians were pushing them to leave as quickly as possible – this would have occurred at midnight<br>Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua bring other proof texts but the controversy, based on the verse: “You shall slaughter the Passover sacrifice in the evening, the time of day when you departed from Egypt.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Deuteronomy 16:6</i> Rabbi Eliezer understands this verse to mean that you shall offer the sacrifice in the evening and burn the remains in the morning – following the opinion of Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah. Rabbi Joshua understands the verse to mean you shall offer the sacrifice and eat it all night, following the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.<br>When the sages were together, the time for the eating of the <i>afikomen</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>matzah</i> which we eat for the <i>Afikomen</i> replaces the Passover sacrifice, It must therefore conform to the laws which applied to the sacrifice and had to be eaten at the same time.</i> arrived and the sages began to debate the correct time by which the <i>matzah</i> had to be consumed: Was it by midnight or could they eat it all night long? Each of the rabbis wanted to follow his approach to the law. As a general matter, Jewish law follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva when his colleagues disagree with him; therefore the law should have been that the Passover offering could be eaten all night long. However, in order to distance us from transgression we say that we should still eat the <i>Afikomen</i> by midnight.<br>Rabbi Tarfon was among the sages in B’nai Brak and refused to allow a compromise in this matter; as the teacher of Rabbi Akiva, he felt a compromise in this matter was wrong and as a result this argument continued all night long. Elsewhere in the <i>Talmud </i>when Rabbi Tarfon took the more stringent point of view he was criticized by the other sages.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In a well known story in <i>Berachot</i>, Rabbi Tarfon brags that he followed the opinion of Beit Hillel regarding the recitation of the evening<i> Sh’ma</i> and insisted on reciting it while lying down even though he was in a dangerous place. The Rabbis chided him and Rabbi Nachman went so far as to say that he deserved to be killed for endangering himself. Rabbi Rabinowitz points out that the other rabbis were critical of Rabbi Tarfon even though Beit Hillel does not exclude the possibility of leaning during the even <i>Sh’ma</i>. Apparently Rabbi Tarfon concluded from this one when possible the lenient point should be adopted.</i> As a result he was uncompromising in this matter and insisted that the sacrifice could be consumed all night long, taking a more lenient opinion. Rabbi Tarfon’s name appears last in the list of sages in B’nai Brak since he was the oldest of the group and apparently as a result he had the greatest influence in this discussion.",
                    "<b>Why does the <i>Haggadah</i> tell us that this incident took place in B’nai Brak?</b> What difference does it make where the sages were when they had this discussion? We learn elsewhere in the <i>Talmud t</i>hat even if the sages disagreed about a matter of Jewish law, we follow the local authority even when his opinion is not the final ruling. Since B’nai Brak was the home of Rabbi Akiva the sages did not eat the <i>Afikomen</i> until the end of the night following his point of view. They did this despite the fact that the sages agreed that even though one could wait, one should eat the <i>matzah</i> by midnight in order to avoid transgression.",
                    "<b>And why was it necessary to tell us that they discussed the Exodus all night long?</b> This is a way of telling us that while Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua disagreed about the time frame in which one was allowed to eat the <i>Pesach</i> (and later the <i>Afikomen</i>), whether it was all night long or only until midnight, they both agreed that the redemption began during the night.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Talmud, Berachot</i> 9a</i> By discussing the Exodus all night long, they were able to celebrate the beginning of the redemption. The only thing they disagreed about is when was the period of <i>chipazon,</i> of hasting? Was it when the Egyptians pressed the Israelites to leave Egypt (according to Rabbi Eliezer, at midnight) or was it in the morning when the Israelites quickly left Egypt, ‘in haste’ (according to Rabbi Joshua – as a result they could eat the Passover offering all night long).",
                    "<b>Why are we told that the students came and told the sages, ‘The time for the Sh’ma has arrived?’ </b>This seems odd: why weren’t the students with their teachers in the first place? If they were, the passage would have said, “The students told the sages, (and not came and told the sages).”"
                ]
            ],
            "The Four Sons": [
                [
                    "<b>Blessed is the One who gave Torah to His people Israel. The Torah speaks about four types of children. </b><i>Ma’aseh Hashem</i> explains that the wise child is Isaac, the wicked one is Esau, the simple one is Jacob, and the one who doesn’t know how to ask refers to Ishmael. Why was it necessary to mention these four people in this statement? Furthermore, why does the <i>Torah</i> say that “God gave Torah to HIS PEOPLE, Israel” – isn’t the fact that Israel is God’s people obvious? The <i>Haggadah</i> could have said, “Blessed is the One who gave <i>Torah</i> to Israel.”<br>We learn that the <i>Torah</i> resided with God for the first two thousand years from the time of creation until the time of Abraham. It was only in the time of Abraham that the teachings of <i>Torah</i> were revealed. The <i>Torah</i> says, that “Abraham made souls in Haran;” the Aramaic translation explains that this means that Abraham taught <i>Torah</i> to others; it implies that the <i>Torah </i>began to be revealed in the time of Abraham.<br>If the <i>Torah</i> was to be revealed after two thousand years, why wasn’t it revealed immediately in the time of Abraham? Why wait until the Exodus? A poet, in one of the <i>Yotzrot</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A <i>Yotzer (Yotzrot)</i> is a special liturgical poem which was recited following the <i>Borchu </i>in the <i>Shacharit</i> service. Special poems were written for other holidays and occasion which were added into the service.</i> which is recited on <i>Shavuot</i>, writes that the <i>Torah</i> could not be given in the time of Isaac because he flattered Esau.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Isaac favored Esau over Jacob! He could not be trusted to give the <i>Torah</i> to Jacob so the <i>Torah </i>was not given in his time</i> Jacob was not worthy of receiving the <i>Torah</i> n the Bible says of him: “My ways are hidden from the Lord”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">37Isaiah 40:27</i> It would appear, then, that Isaac or Jacob were both willing to accept it but they were not worthy of receiving. The <i>Torah</i> did not want to fall into their hands. Ishmael and Esau were both offered the <i>Torah</i> and they rejected it; Ishmael rejected it because he didn’t want to accept the commandment, “Do not commit adultery,” and Esau because he rejected, “Do not murder.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Sifre</i> Deuteronomy 343 – a slightly different version - Ishmael rejects the commandments because it says “Thou shall not steal.”</i> The <i>Torah </i>did not reject them; they rejected the <i>Torah</i>!<br>In <i>Masechet Shabbat</i> we learn that the reason the nations of the world are impure is because they did not stand at Mount Sinai: because Israel stood at Mount Sinai they were cleansed of impurity. Had God given Israel the <i>Torah </i>sooner we would not have been impure so long. So why did God wait? There are two answers. First, the Holy One waited until there were 600,000 Israelites, similar to the number of letters in the <i>Torah</i>. That way every Israelite could take hold of one letter in the <i>Torah</i>. The word <i>Yisrael</i> hints at this explanation; it is an abbreviation for, <i>Yesh shishim ribbo otiot latorah,” </i>there are 60 times ten thousand letters in the <i>Torah</i>.” And second, had God given it earlier who would have received it since Isaac and Jacob were not worthy and Ishmael and Esau rejected it?<br>Now we can understand the words of the <i>Haggadah. </i>We bless God who gave the <i>Torah</i> to an entire nation and not to a single individual such as Isaac and Jacob, or Ishmael and Esau for that matter. He goes on to say, the <i>Torah</i> speaks AGAINST<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Hebrew word <i>Keneged</i> is here understood as “against” rather than the<i> Torah</i> speaks of four children…</i> four children. It was because of these four individuals that the <i>Torah</i> could not be given to the world sooner. The poet of the <i>Shavuot</i> poem also mentions Abraham; he too was unworthy of receiving the <i>Torah </i>since he questioned God. He said, “O God how am I to know<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The rabbis distinguish between <i>Pesach Mitzvrayim,</i> the observance on the original Passover, and the laws of <i>Pesach dorot, </i>Passover as it was observed in later generations.</i> if I am to possess it?”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Genesis 15:8</i>"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>The Wise Child, what does he ask…So too you must tell him the detailed laws of Pesach:</b> The word <i>V’af</i>, “so too…” seem unnecessary and extra in this statement. To explain this word, we begin with two relevant passages from the <i>Talmud</i>.<br>The first text is from <i>Pesachim</i>. The<i> Talmud </i>discusses whether the taking of the Passover lamb on the tenth day prior to the sacrifice was performed only at the time of the <i>Pesach </i>offering in Egypt or whether it was performed during subsequent observances of Passover in generations to come. Since the <i>Torah</i> says “On the tenth day of this month,”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 12:3</i> this is taken to mean on the original Egyptian Passover observance and not on later observances of <i>Pesach.</i> We also learn from the verse, “Any slave a man has bought may eat of it once he has been circumcised,” <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 12:44</i> that if one is not circumcised one cannot eat the <i>Pesach </i>offering, and that if the son is not circumcised then the father cannot eat it either<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The father is prevented from eating it since his indulgence in this ceremony might lead the son who is prohibited from doing so to participate as well.</i>. The use of the word <i>bo </i>is taken to mean ‘it,’ that is, specifically the Passover sacrifice in Egypt, that is, the law applies only to <i>Pesach Mitzrayim </i>and not <i>Pesach Dorot.</i> This conclusion is rejected, however, because the <i>Torah</i> also says, “You shall observe in this month the following practice”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 13:5</i> which the sages take to mean that in this regard <i>Pesach Mitzrayim </i>and<i> Pesach Dorot</i> should be the same.<br>The second text is found in <i>Yebamot.</i> We learn that during the forty years in the wilderness, the people of Israel were not circumcised. The <i>Tosafot</i> ask, how, then, could they eat the Passover sacrifice since one must be circumsized in order to partake of it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 12:48</i> They explain that the Israelite men were circumcised before they left Egypt but those who were born in the Egyptian were not circumcised, so could not eat the offering. But if we say that the non-performance of circumcision prevents not only the sons but even the fathers from eating the Passover offering and that this law applied to <i>Pesach Dorot</i> as well as<i> Pesach Mitzrayim</i>, shouldn’t the fathers also have been prohibited from eating the offering in the wilderness along with their children?<br>We can now understand the Wise Child’s question: “What is the meaning of the testimonies, statutes and judgments which the Lord our God commanded you?” The Wise Child presents his father with a problematic dilemma.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A<i> mah nafshach, is </i>an objection in which two or more alternatives of a case or an opinion are shown to be equally objectionable.</i> The child sees his father eating the Passover offering and is surprised. He asks: “Did God really command you to eat this offering?” If on the one hand you are eating the Passover offering because you were commanded to eat this offering and I can’t because I was not circumsized in the wilderness, then, how is this correct since the non-circumcision of the son should also prevent the father from eating the sacrifice. But if on the other hand this law only applied during the <i>Pesach Mitzrayim</i> and not in later years, then shouldn’t the same be applied to the issue of circumcision – that non-circumcision only prevented someone from eating the <i>Pesach</i> offering in Egypt but not in subsequent observances of <i>Pesac? </i>You can’t have it both ways – either both laws apply after the Exodus – both circumcision and the prevention of the father – or both laws don’t apply, in which case the child should be able to eat the <i>Pesach</i> offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Key to the argument here is Rabbi Ginsburg’s assumption that the Wise Child’s question was being asked in the wilderness and therefore raises this <i>Halachic </i>objection! He is uncircumcised and wants to know why his father can still eat the Passover sacrifice.</i><br>To this objection, the <i>Haggadah</i> answers, “So too you shall explain the detailed laws of Passover…” Since the Wise Child raised a dilemma (<i>mah nafshach</i>), we answer him with in a similar style. First, we explain to him that in all the years in the wilderness the Israelites only observed one Passover. And since the non-circumcision of the males was not by choice but because they were traveling in the wilderness, this was not a reason to prevent the men from eating the Passover offering. Since circumcision was prohibited in the wilderness, God in fact commanded those who were already circumcised but not those who weren’t. And if he holds the other point of view – that not being circumcised only prevented those in Egypt from eating the Passover offering but not subsequent generations – we can answer him that this is incorrect since the <i>Torah</i> says: “You shall observe in this month the following practice.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 13:5</i> This implies that the practices of the <i>Pesach Mitzrayim</i> and<i> Pesach Dorot</i> are supposed to be the same in this regard.<br>That the laws of Passover are the same both for <i>Pesach Mitzrayim and Pesach Dorot </i>can also be proven from the statement in the <i>Haggadah:</i> “They do not proceed to any dessert after eating the <i>Afikomen.</i>” If the reason we do not eat after the <i>Afikomen</i> – that is the Passover lamb offering – is a concern that we might break the bones of the offering (which is prohibited by the <i>Torah</i>), then when the <i>Afikomen </i>is <i>matzah</i> in lieu of a sacrifice then we should not be prohibited from eating after the final bit of <i>matzah </i>which we eat as the <i>Afikomen. </i>Again, the rabbis apply the verse to this situation “You shall observe in this month the following practice”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 13:5</i> and conclude that the same law applies in all these situations. This supports the idea that that the laws of<i> Pesach Mitzrayim </i>and<i> Pesach Dorot </i>should be the same. We include this example in our answer to the Wise Child to teach him this lesson.<br>In order to correct the Wise Child, then, we teach him all the laws of Passover. The laws regarding the breaking of the bones of the offering as well as the question of the uncircumcised male are the same for both <i>Pesach Mitzrayim </i>and<i> Pesach Dorot</i>. When we say, “So too you must tell him…” what the <i>Haggadah</i> is telling us is teach this law too so he will compare it with the question he raised."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>The wicked one, what does he say? </b>The Wicked Child asks a question similar to the Wise Child. The difference between the two questions is that while the Wise Child asks because he wishes to be included in the observance of Passover, the Wicked Child asks in order to get his father not to observe the Passover offering. He asks, “If I can’t offer a sacrifice why are you bothering to offer one?” Why is he called a <i>Rasha</i>? He is called by this title because his attitude is not a generous one. Since he can’t give, he doesn’t want others to give others. We criticism him for this and ‘blunt his teeth.’<br>The <i>Midrash</i> teaches us that there were two types of blood which made Israel worthy of redemption from Egypt: the blood of circumcision and the blood of the Passover offering. If it was left to the devices of the Wicked Child, Israel would not have performed these two commandments and they would not have been worthy of redemption. Had he been there he would not have had these <i>mitzvot</i> to his credit and he would not have been worthy of being taken out of Egypt."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>The Simple Child, what does he say? What is this?</b> The <i>tam’s </i>question (the Simple Child) appears in <i>Parshat Bo,</i> Exodus Chapter 13:14. The <i>Haggadah</i> assumes that this child is simple because of the simplicity of his question – one doesn’t have to dwell on his words. But there is more to the<i> tam’s</i> question if we consider their context: “And when your child asks you, tomorrow, saying, ‘What is this,’ then you shall say to him….” It is not what he asks but when he asks his question that is important. There are two questions. First, why does the simple child ask ‘tomorrow?’ Rashi and other commentators understand the word <i>machar</i>, tomorrow, to mean, ‘after some time.’ But there is no reason to understand this word in any other way than its literal meaning. If the simple child was curious about his father’s actions on the night of Passover he should have asked him about the ceremony immediately – he didn’t have to wait until the next day! Also, why does the verse include the word <i>laymor, </i>‘saying’? This word would appear to be superfluous.<br>The <i>tam</i> is not as simple minded as he first appears to be. His question occurred literally ‘on the next day’ after the Passover offering. He didn’t want to ask his father at the time of the Passover offering. The following day he realized there was something curious going on when his father stopped eating the Passover offering. The word<i> laymor</i> hints at the nature of his true question.<br>The crux of the question here has to do with the controversy between Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah and Rabbi Akiva as well as the whole question of <i>Pesach Mitzraim</i> and <i>Pesach Dorot</i>.<i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally the Egyptian Pesach, the first Passover as it was celebrated in the land of Egypt. There were certain differences between the Egyptian Egypt and <i>Pesach Dorot</i>, or Passover as it was celebrated by later generations. For instance, the Egyptian Passover had to be set aside four days before it was offered as a sacrifice.</i></i> Even though the time of the original Passover offering is singled out, “On the tenth day of <b>THIS</b> month,”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 12:2</i> the sages concluded that, for the most part, the laws for <i>Pesach Mitzraim</i> are not so different from the Passover celebration of later generations<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Exodus 13:5 The sages interpret the verse to mean that the rite of Passover and the rite in Egypt were no different from one another.</i>. As we have already seen, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Akiva each deduce different lessons from the word <i>hazeh</i>, “<b>THIS</b>.” Rabbi Elazar concludes that this word teaches us that the Passover offering must be consumed by midnight<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As we saw earlier in the commentary.</i> while Rabbi Akiva concludes that this extra word, <i>hazeh,</i> teaches us that even though the Passover offering is a minor sanctity offering (<i>kodshei kalim</i>)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There are two categories of sacrifices <i>kodshei kalim, </i>minor sanctity sacrifices and <i>kodshei kedoshim</i>, or major sanctity sacrifices. This is a complex area of <i>halachah</i>. For our purposes the <i>kodshei kalim</i> could be consumed over a period of two days. Even though the Passover sacrifice normally would fall into this category it is singled out since it must be burned at the end of the night. The Passover offering was treated differently because it was offered at night rather than during the day like the other <i>kodshei kalim.</i></i>, it still must be consumed by morning, since the entire night when the Israelites ate the original Passover sacrifice was the time of ‘haste’. Normally <i>kodshei kalim</i> can be eaten over the course of two days and one night,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Or in the case of the Passover offering which is offered at night, it would have been two nights and one night.</i> but this was not the case with regard to the Passover offering. It had to be consumed on that night before morning. Rabbi Elazar deduces the lesson of not leaving the Passover offering over from the verse: “You shall not leave any of it over until morning; if any of it is left until morning you shall burn it.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 12:10</i> Rabbi Akiva, on the other hand, understands this verse as a reference to other sacrifices of minor sanctity (and not the Passover offering). When the verse says “until morning you shall burn it,” it means that it must be burned on the second morning.<br>Returning to the original question – what caused the <i>tam </i>to ask question his father the day after the Passover offering was made? The first Passover that the Israelites celebrated after the left Egypt took place on a Saturday night. Now, while the Passover sacrifice could be offered on the Sabbath which was the eve of Passover, the<i> hagigah<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>Hagigah </i>is the name of the festive offering which was made on each of the holidays. In addition to the Passover offering, the people were obligated to bring a <i>hagigah</i> offering. The egg on the <i>Seder p</i>late symbolizes this second offering.</i> </i>could not. Therefore the <i>hagigah </i>had to be made on the eve of the Sabbath. Since it could be consumed over two nights and the day in between them, it could still be eaten on the Sabbath. We can now see why the<i> tam</i> was so curious about the offerings; he saw his father offer the <i>hagigah</i> and consume it the next night while the Passover sacrifice was offered on the Saturday night but was only consumed until midnight. Both were <i>kodshei kalim</i>, shouldn’t they both be consumed over two days. Still he remained silent and did not ask his father about this at the time of the offering. That is why we call him <i>a tam</i>. It was only the next day that he asked his father about the sacrifices when he saw that he was no longer eating the Passover offering even though it was <i>kodshei kalim</i>, like the <i>hagigah</i> offering.<br>The seemingly superfluous use of the word <i>laymor,</i> SAYING, in this Exodus 13:14 is a hint that that this law applies to the Passover offering. The word <i>laymor </i>emphasizes the uniqueness of the Passover offering – it cannot be consumed earlier than Passover eve and it can not be consumed later than midnight or sunrise depending on whose point of view you are following."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>As for the one who doesn’t know to ask</b>: The <i>Haggadah</i> says that one should ‘open up’ for the one who does not know how to ask. It then goes on to quote a verse: “You shall tell your child on that day…” Finally the next passage in the <i>Haggadah</i> discusses whether one should begin telling the story from the beginning of the month…Who exactly is the person who is referred to as the one who doesn’t know how to ask and why doesn’t he know how to ask? By analyzing a discussion in the <i>Talmud</i> we come up with an intriguing answer to this question.<br><i>Talmud Pesachim </i>discusses from when we become obligated to expound on the laws of Passover: is it thirty days before the holiday or two weeks before Passover? The <i>tanna kama<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Tanna kama </i>is a term for the first opinion in a <i>Mishnah</i>. Often the person is not named but is referred to as the first<i> tanna.</i></i> </i>deduces the practice of expounding on the laws of Passover for thirty days from the <i>Pesach sheni. <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Numbers 9:1-12, The second Passover took place one month after the regular Passover so that those who were impure because of contact with a corpse could offer a Passover offering.</i></i> Moses originally informed the people of the <i>Pesach sheni </i>on the fourteenth of <i>Nisan</i>, a year after the people left Egypt.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Numbers 9:6 The reference ‘on that day’ must refer to the 14th of <i>Nissan</i> when the other Israelites were preparing to celebrate Passover. Those who were unable to celebrate Passover on that day had to wait until the following month from which we deduce that they had to have thirty days to expound on the laws of Passover.</i> Those who were unable to offer a <i>Pesach </i>offering because they were impurity on the eve of Passover were told that they could make the special offering thirty days later. This way they would have thirty days to expound<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Hebrew <i>sho’alim v’dorshim</i>, literally question and expound on…..</i> on and study the laws of Passover.<br>Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel, on the other hand, concludes that one only has to expound on the laws of Passover for two weeks before the holiday. He deduces this from the verse, “This month shall be for you the beginning of months.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 12:1</i> Because Moses informed the people of Passover on the first of <i>Nisan</i>, we too begin preparing for the holiday by studying the laws of Passover on the first of <i>Nisan,</i> two weeks before the<i> Seder.</i><br>What practical difference is there between these two points of view? It would influence what questions a teacher should answer first from his students, and to what questions the student should give priority. During the thirty days before Passover (according to the <i>tanna kama) </i>questions about Passover take precedence over other questions of <i>halachah.</i> According to Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel, questions about Passover only take precedence during the last two weeks before the holiday.<br>The one who does not know to ask, then, is someone who doesn’t know which of these opinions represents the <i>halachah.</i> It is more than two weeks but less than thirty days before Passover, which question should he ask his teacher and to which question should the teacher give precedence? Do Passover questions take precedence over other <i>Talmudic</i> questions? The student’s silence is a sign of his confusion and indecision. The <i>Haggadah</i> advices: <i>at p’tach lo </i>- you should open the discussion for him by letting him know that you understand the reason for his confusion. By outlining the two points of view and their biblical proofs, the student will know which question to ask and you will inspire him to finally ask his question!"
                ]
            ],
            "Yechol Me'rosh Chodesh": [
                [
                    "The<i> Haggadah</i> continues this discussion of when we can discuss the laws of Passover in the next passage: “You shall tell your child…” Does this mean from <i>Rosh Hodesh</i>? It teaches us<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally the text says <i>talmud lomar,</i> a common expression in rabbinic literature when offering a retort or an answer to a challenge or a question.</i>: ‘On that day.’ Now if it says ‘on that day,’ it could also mean in the daytime! It teaches us, ‘Because of this.’ ‘Because of this’ means, that we only tell the story of the Exodus when the <i>Matzah</i> and <i>Maror </i>is laid in front of you.” This statement is not only a discussion of when we celebrate the <i>Seder</i> but when we expound on the laws of Passover. First the <i>Haggadah</i> presumes that we can discuss the laws of Passover from <i>Rosh Hodesh</i>, following the opinion of Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel. The text then says: No, we follow the opinion of the <i>tana kama</i>, who bases his point of view on the expression <i>bayom hahu<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This expression, <i>bayom hahu,</i> appears both in Exodus 13:8 and in Numbers 9:6 – “There were some men who were impure and could not offer the Passover sacrifice on that day” The author understands the discussion in the <i>Haggadah</i> as a discussion of when we can expound on the laws of Passover as well as a discussion of when we are obligated to tell the story of the Exodus on Passover.</i>,</i> and concludes that this is actually also a reference to the story of the Second Passover. Now, having said we have to do it on that day – we raise another question with regard to Passover itself. If we are obligated to tell the story of the Exodus ‘on that day,’ does this mean we can even do so during the daytime – the fourteenth of <i>Nisan</i>, (and not at night)? The <i>Haggadah </i>answers this question: No, it must be done when we can have the <i>Matzah</i> and <i>Maror</i> laid before us!<br>This controversy brings us back to an earlier discussion: to what extent are the laws of Passover which we observe (<i>Pesach Dorot</i>) similar to or different from the laws of the Egyptian Passover (<i>Pesach Mitzraim</i>)? We have already seen that when the <i>Torah</i> says to set aside the Passover offering on the tenth of ‘this month,’ it is talking about the Egyptian Passover and not <i>Pesach Dorot.</i> This raises and issue for Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel, since he uses the word <i>zeh</i>, this, (as in <i>ba’avur zeh</i>) implies that the laws of this offering are more or less the same both for the Egyptian Passover and the Passover of the generations. We learn this from the verse: “You shall observe in this month this practice.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 13:5. Ginsburg repeatedly quotes this verse as a proof text for the fact that despite the differences between <i>Pesach Mitzraim and Pesach Dorot</i>, the laws for the two offerings are the same.</i> Therefore, since Moses gave the people two weeks to learn the laws of Passover we must do the same in our preparations for Passover.<br>The <i>tanna kama,</i> on the other hand, bases his argument on Moses’ statement the following year as the people prepared for the first Passover after leaving Egypt. The original two week period only applied to the original Passover, not<i> Pesach Dorot.</i> Since Moses gave those who were impure one month to prepare for the Second Passover, we too must take a full thirty days to prepare for Passover and to expound on the laws of Passover. If we do not connect the two Passovers as Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel did(?), we might conclude that we are allowed to eat the Passover offering even in the day time. Therefore the <i>Haggadah</i> adds the last bit to its argument: We can consume it ‘On that day’ but not in the day time; <i>ba’avur zeh</i> - only when <i>matzah</i> and<i> maror</i> are laid before us which would be at night.<br>Finally, according to the <i>tana kama, </i>one might conclude that the <i>mitzvah</i> for the Passover offering is separate from the<i> mitzvah</i> of <i>matzah</i> and<i> maror</i>; therefore, <i>Matzah and Maror</i> must consumed at night but the Passover offering can be consumed even in the day since our Passover offering is different from the Egyptian Passover offering. The <i>tana kama </i>would therefore conclude that this is not so since the <i>Torah </i>says: “They shall offer it in the second month on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight; with <i>Matzah and Maror</i> you shall eat them.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Numbers 9:11 Rabban Shimon was able to argue from the Egyptian Passover offering that they must both be eaten at night; since the <i>tana kama</i> rejected his interpretation of these verse, he needed another proof which he offers here.</i> This verse implies that the Passover offering and the <i>Matzah</i> must be consumed at the same time – since the <i>Matzah</i> must be consumed at night so must the Passover offering!<br>Thus we have given the one who does not know the <i>halachah </i>an answer. We must expound on the laws of Passover thirty days before Passover, just as Moses taught the people in the wilderness. Also, even if we say the laws of the Egyptian Passover are different from later celebrations of the Passover, the law is still that the sacrifice must be consumed at night."
                ]
            ],
            "In the Beginning Our Fathers Were Idol Worshipers": [
                [
                    "<b>Originally our ancestors were idol worshippers</b>: Earlier we explained the <i>Talmudic </i>dictum: in telling the story of the Exodus we should begin with<i> genut,</i> disgrace, and end with <i>shevach, </i>with praise. Rav says that we do this by beginning with, “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt,” and ending, “And He took us out from there…” while Samuel claims that we fulfill this dictum by beginning, “At first our ancestors were idol worshippers,” and continuing, “God has brought us near to serve Him.” We explained Rav’s opinion above; now we must explain Samuel’s opinion. Some questions arise: first what disgrace is there in the fact that Terach worshipped idols since this occurred before the giving of the <i>Torah</i> at Sinai? And second, Rashi explains that the praiseworthy conclusion to this statement is when we say: “Who redeems us and redeemed our ancestors.” This statement needs some explanation!<br>To understand Samuel, we must begin with the following statement from the <i>Midrash</i>: When God said to Moses, “I shall visit the sins of the ancestors on their children,”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 20: 5</i> Moses said: ‘Wicked parents sometimes give birth to righteous children; why should good children have to bear the sin of their wicked parents? For instance: Terach was a maker of idols and yet his son, Abraham, was righteous! Should righteous children be flogged for their wicked parents? God said to Moses: By your life I will fulfill your words: “Parents shall not be put to death for children nor children for their parents.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Deuteronomy 2416 For the original source of this <i>Midrash</i> see: missing source?</i><br>This statement is troubling. We have two statements in the <i>Torah</i> which contradict one another: one that says that children are punished for their parents’ sins and the other that says they are not punished for the sins of their parents.  The <i>Talmud</i> tries to reconcile these statements by saying one is speaking about a situation where children remain wicked like their parents and the other when children do not follow in their wicked parents’ footsteps – then a child is not punished for his parents’ sins. And yet we do see situations in which good children suffer for their wicked parents’ deeds. There is another reason for this.<br>A well known <i>Midrash<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Shir Hashirm Rabbah</i> 1:24 - Rabbi Meir said: When the Jews stood before Sinai to receive the <i>Torah,</i> God said to them: \"I swear, I will not give you the <i>Torah</i> unless you provide worthy guarantors who will assure that you will observe its laws.\" The Jews responded, \"Master of the world, our forefathers will be our guarantors!\" \"Your guarantors themselves require guarantors!\" was God's reply. \"Master of the world,\" the Jews exclaimed, \"our prophets will guarantee our observance of the <i>Torah.</i>\" \"I have grievances against them, too.’The shepherds have rebelled against Me' (Jeremiah 2:8),\" God replied. \"Bring proper guarantors and only then will I give you the <i>Torah</i>.\" As a last resort, the Jews declared, \"our children will serve as our guarantors!\" \"They truly are worthy guarantors,\" God replied. \"Because of them I will give the <i>Torah</i>.\"</i> </i>tells us that before God would give the <i>Torah</i> to the people of Israel, God insisted on some type of guarantee in lieu of the <i>Torah</i>. After several offers, Israel chose to make their children their pledge for the <i>Torah</i>. When good children suffer because of their parents’ wrong doings, it is not that they are being punished in lieu of their parents but because they were given as a pledge for the <i>Torah</i>. But this idea is also problematic. How can parents obligate their children when they are minors and are not free to choose or reject the offer? Isn’t Jewish law that a person cannot obligate someone else without him being present or in the case of a minor without his explicit consent when he has reached the age of obligation? And yet we see in the book of Deuteronomy that Moses says that the covenant of Israel was made not only for those who were present at Sinai but those who were not present.<br>And yet to be Israel’s guarantor for the <i>Torah</i> is not considered an obligation but a privilege, and in Jewish law we have a principle: <i>zachin l’adam she’lo bifanav: </i>“One can accept a privilege for someone even if he is not present” (or is not of age to accept it himself).” We are allowed to accept something for a another person that will benefit the other person even if they did not expressly give us permission to do so. For instance, one can immerse a non-Jewish minor for the purpose of conversion even though he is not yet old enough to accept this on his own. Similarly, even though the pledging of Israel’s children for the purpose of receiving the <i>Torah</i> entailed obligations (and even punishments) it was considered a privilege and not an obligation.<br>Returning to our original question regarding the contradictory verses in the <i>Torah:</i> the statement that, ‘children are punished for the sins of their parents’ troubled Moses. It refers to the period before the giving of the <i>Torah</i>. That is why the <i>Haggadah</i> begins “At first (that is, before the giving of the <i>Torah</i>) our ancestors were idolaters.” That is why Abraham’s descendents had to suffer in Egypt in payment for the sins of their idolatrous ancestors. After the giving of the <i>Torah</i> at Sinai, the operating principle changed: children were no longer punished for the sins of the parents.<br>Sometimes, however, children are still subject to the behaviors and consequences of their parents’ actions. But this is not punishment but a matter of being our parents’ guarantors. The<i> Haggadah</i> tells us not to be surprised that we went down to Egypt and had to spend time ridding ourselves of our idolatrous parents’ sins. After the giving of the <i>Torah </i>we no longer were subject to our parents’ wrong doing, but we still had an obligation that went along with the privilege of accepting the <i>Torah</i> and worshipping God.<br>We can now understand why Samuel’s telling begins with “At first our ancestors were idolaters,” and why it ends with the statement thanking God for redeeming us and our ancestors. A slave might not be free but he does not have to observe the sexual taboos and boundaries set by the law. One could argue, therefore, that a parent is really obligating his children by making them observe the laws of the <i>Torah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">You can’t have sex with whoever you want!</i> However, the <i>Midrash</i> tells us that one of the reasons Israel was worthy of being redeemed is that they already observed many of these limitations – so this was not a new set of obligations. When we thank God, in the <i>Haggadah, </i>“who redeemed us and our ancestors,” we are making reference to this fact and proof that it was a privilege and not an obligation for Israel to now accept the<i> Torah.</i><br>Returning to the earlier questions: Since Terach lived before the giving of the <i>Torah</i>, why should he be punished for not believing in God? The <i>Midrash </i>tells us that Abraham was 48 before he came to believe in God and that Terach did not convert until even later in his old age. Abraham was punished, therefore, for waiting so long to accept the existence of God. This might explain also why Job was punished: Job was none other than Uz, the grandson of Terach. He carried the guilt of his grandfather who waited so long to see the truth of God’s existence.<br>But why did Job have to pay for the guilt of his grandfather? According to the <i>Kabbalists</i>, Job held the transmigrated soul of Terach – so, in fact, through Job was Terach atoning for his sins!! Job, then, was not paying for his fathers’ or his grandfather’s sins but for his own sins which transmigrated with him into future generations. Abraham was fearful that he might have to atone for the sins of his father after having the vision of the pieces. He needed to be reassured that while he would have to atone for his own sins, he would not have to atone for the sins of his father<br>Abraham was actually very fearful that he thought that he would have to bear the suffering for his father’s reluctance to convert; God reassured him that Job had already been born and that he would bear this suffering instead of him. But Abraham’s descendents were still destined to suffer in Egypt for the sins of their ancestor, Abraham, for one of two reasons: either because he waited until he was forty eight to affirm his belief in God and as a result the Israelites in Egypt also continued to worship idols; or second, because he expressed a lack of faith in God’s promise when he said, “O Lord how am I to know that I am to possess it?”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Genesis 15:8</i> God response to this statement was: “Know well that your ancestors shall be strangers in the land not theirs…”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Genesis 1513</i><br>Both of these explanations for the sojourn in Egypt are problematic. It doesn’t seem right that the people of Israel should suffer because Abraham questioned whether God would fulfill His promise. The Israelites, in fact, showed great faith in God when Moses returned to Egypt to tell them that God would redeem them. If we presume that God only visits the sins of the fathers on his children when they fail to repent, doesn’t the <i>Torah</i> say of Israel: “And the people believed when they heard that the Lord had taken note…?”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 4:31</i> On the other hand, if one argues that the reason for Israel’s sojourn in Egypt was Abraham’s failure to convert until he was forty eight, this too does not seem right. Then the purpose of the Exile was to purify the Israelites of the idolatry that they were still carrying in Egypt. Yet we know that the Israelites continued to worship idols until the redemption from Egypt!<br>We can now understand why the <i>Haggadah</i> continues with the statement, “Originally our ancestors worshipped idols.” This statement suggests that the reason for the descent into Egypt was Abraham and Terach. Abraham and Terach were idolaters and they were slow to affirm their faith in one God. As a result, we must bear the consequences of their actions and it was necessary for us to be purified of idolatry through the suffering in Egypt. Lest one say, ‘why should they suffer; didn’t they convert to monotheism,’ the <i>Haggadah</i> emphasizes the word ‘originally,’ to tell us that this is for their actions prior to their conversion. The text calls Terach ‘the father of Abram and the father of Nachor’ as a way of telling us that while we must bear the consequences of Abraham idolatry, Job (or Uz, as he is called) bore the consequences of Terach’s idolatry and late conversion to monotheism.<br>Finally we can return to the original question: in what way does this statement reflect our shameful origins? Because Abraham took so long to convert, we had to bear the consequences of his delay. In this way our story begins with <i>genut,</i> with shame. We also see that Israel suffered in Egypt not only because their forefather took so long to convert, but because our ancestors too continued to worship idols. Since they continued in the sinful ways of their ancestors, they were subject to the verse, “He visits the sins of the fathers on their children.” We can also understand the conclusion of this passage in which we bless God for redeeming us and redeeming our forefathers.” <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Genesis 13:17</i> Israel helped to repair the sins of Abraham as well as their own sins through their time as slaves in Egypt.<br><b>And Joshua said…God led them through all of the land of Canaan (Joshua 24:2-4)</b>: This verse illustrates God’s great love for Abraham and his descendents. Normally one cannot acquire property by simply wandering through the territory. But God loved Abraham so much he allowed him to acquire the land of Canaan by simply ‘walking’ through the land. We see this in the verse, “Rise up and walk about the land, through its length and its breadth for I give it to you.” Similarly in the verse quoted in the <i>Haggadah,</i> Joshua tells the people that God led them through the land – thereby taking possession of the land. Only Jerusalem was in the territory bequeathed to Shem; the rest of the land of Canaan belonged to the descendents of Ham. By allowing Abraham and his descendents to walk through the land, they took possession of it.<br>One might ask: what benefit was there in this for Abraham since he did not really take possession of the land of Canaan? That is why the verse in the <i>Haggadah</i> says, “I took your father from the other side of the river and led him through all the land of Canaan and multiplied his seed and gave him Isaac<i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Joshua 14:3</i></i>.” Even though Abraham did not yet merit to take possession of the land, God gave him offspring so that there would be future generations to possess the land for him.<br><b>…and I multiplied his seed and gave him Isaac</b>: How is it that Abraham was capable of inheriting the land of Canaan? The <i>Midrash</i> teaches us that when Abraham checked the stars,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The whole subject of astrology and the influence of the astrological bodies on human destiny is one that has been discussed at length in Medieval thought. We also know from archeological finds from the classical period that there is much evidence of astrology in the archeology of synagogues from the late Roman and Byzantine period. It is not at all surprising to find that the Rabbis suggested that Abraham consulted the stars.</i> he realized that he would not have children. (Children depend on the astrological signs and not human merit; this is an idea that might have been comforting for those who were unable to have children. It suggests that childlessness is not a punishment but a simple fact of destiny.)  The Moharsha writes that even those things that are determined by astrological signs are overturned by the merit of the many.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words nothing is determined by forces beyond our control. If the many merit it, they can overcome those things that are determined by the stars!</i> The greatness of Abraham is that his merit is similar to that of the many; even though the astrological signs suggested that he would never have children, he was able to overcome his own astrological destiny. In a discussion <i>Talmud Rosh Hashanah</i>, we learn that even though Sarah was an individual, she was considered to be like a multitude because she was destined to give birth to a great nation. In discussing which verses could be included in the <i>Zichronot,</i> the verses of remembrance in the <i>Rosh Hashanah </i>service, the sages teach that verses which deal of visitation such as “God visited Sarah,”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Genesis 22:1</i> could be included in the <i>Zichronot </i>service. This was the case even though we normally don’t include verses that talk about remembering or visitation when they are speaking about an individual. This is because of Sarah’s unique status as the mother of great nations. Since Sarah was compared to ‘many,’ so too Abraham was considered to be like the many. This is also suggested in the verse above. If the many were to come from Isaac then the verse should have said “I gave him Isaac and I multiplied his (Isaac’s) seed.” The verse in Joshua says: “I multiplied his seed and gave him Isaac” suggesting that Abraham was considered to be like the many. Abraham had only one worthy child; God, in fact, did not ‘multiply his seed.’ This expression would not seem to fit Abraham. What we learn here is that Abraham was meritorious because of the many that would eventually be born from his line through Sarah and it was the future generations that gave him the merit to overcome the astrological signs that suggested he wasn’t worthy of having children.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The reasoning here seems to be a little backward – if it was written in the stars that Abraham would not have children, how could his future generations make him worthy of overcoming the deterministic fate written in the astrological signs. Could it be that Sarah was destined to be the mother of a great nation even though the stars did not favor Abraham?</i><br><b>And I gave to Isaac Jacob and Esau:</b> Why does the verse mention Esau? This is a way of proving the genealogy of Isaac. Isaac and Rebecca gave birth to a righteous son (Jacob) and a wicked son (Esau). The righteous son was born to them because Isaac was a righteous man and the son of a righteous man. The wicked child was born to them because even though Rebecca was righteous, she was the daughter of a wicked father. The other nations had looked at the astrological signs and they saw that Abraham was not supposed to have children. When Sarah became pregnant they presumed that she was impregnated while she was in the house of Avimelech. By mentioning that Isaac and Rebecca gave birth to a righteous and a wicked child it became clear that Abraham was the grandfather of one and Rebecca’s father was the grandfather of the other. Had Avimelech been the father of Isaac then Isaac would have given birth to two wicked sons and not just one. The verse goes on to say: “I gave Esau Mount Seir as a possession but Jacob and his children went down to Egypt.” This was further proof of Abraham’s lineage. Jacob and his family went down to Egypt in order fulfill the debt of his grandfather: “Your offspring shall be strangers in a land not their own and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years.” If Jacob was not the descendent of Abraham he would not have had to go down to Egypt with his family and become enslaved. Similarly, God promised to give Abraham’s descendents ten nations. Seven were given to the children of Israel, one was given to Esau’s descendents, and two were given to Lot’s descendents. Even though Esau was unworthy of inheriting a land, he had to do so in order to fulfill the promise God had made to Abraham."
                ],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [
                    "<b>And SHE IS THE ONE <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Hebrew the text says <i>V’hee sh’amda, “</i>and it is that which has stood…” Many of the commentators have speculated on what the word <i>V’hee </i>refers to: Is it the covenant of Israel, God’s promise, or is it something else. Ginzburg takes the expression literally here as I have translated it in the commentary.</i> who has stood by our ancestors and us:</b> What does the word <i>V’hee,</i> “And She” refer to here? In the <i>Talmud Ketubot</i> the question of a woman who is taken captive by gentiles is raised: Is she allowed to remain married to her husband or must they divorce (since she made have had illicit relations with another man? The <i>Talmud</i> suggests if the purpose of the kidnapping was ransom then she is permitted to remain with her husband, but if the purpose was physical force than she cannot remain with her husband. This rule applies specifically in times when the nations of the world have ascendancy over Israel.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Actually the law is much more lenient in this case since a woman is under duress. Rabbi Ginzburg chooses the more stringent argument here in order to make his case for interpreting this passage.</i><br>The nations of the world might use this as an argument against Israel. They could argue that the time of the subjugation in Egypt was a time when the nations had ascendancy over Israel and if the Egyptians held the Israelite men captive, how much more so could they hold their wives captive and do as they wished with them! Therefore Israelite women should have been forbidden to their husbands after they left Egypt.<br>In order to silence the nations, God tells them: “My name testifies to the purity of Israel!” In <i>Ketubot</i>, we learn that while a man cannot ransom a woman and then marry her, one who ransoms her and then testifies that she was not abused is allowed to marry the woman since men do not throw their money away unless they are sure they can marry. Similarly, God redeemed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt and placed Hhis name upon them as testimony for the purpose of marrying them. In each exile, the <i>Shechinah</i>, the divine presence, was exiled with the people Israel for the purpose of being able to testify to Israel’s purity at a time when Israel was under the domination of others. It is to the <i>Shechinah</i> that we are referring in the word <i>V’hee,</i> “and she.” The <i>Shechinah </i>was there when the Israelites were persecuted and their wives were subject to the abuse of the nations. <i>Malchut,</i> the seventh <i>Sephirah</i> is called <i>Shechinah </i>because she dwells with Israel wherever she is found in the exile. She was there for Israel in Egypt and she is there for the people Israel throughout the ages while Israel was in exile. That is why the <i>Haggadah</i> says: “She is the one who is there for our ancestors AND for us.” The <i>Haggadah </i>says, “IN EVERY generation they rose up against us.” God saved us by testifying for us of our purity.<br>We can now understand the comment in <i>Talmud Berachot</i> on the verse: “Tell the people, PLEASE,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Hebrew word <i>Na</i> – Please - surprised the commentators. Why didn’t God simply command the people to take gold and silver from their neighbors – why did He phrase it in the form of a request?</i> to borrow, each man from his neighbor and each woman from hers, objects of silver and gold.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Exodus 11:2.</i> The nations might have construed the reason for the booty one of two ways: it could have been a fine for the defamation of character (if a man accuses his new wife of having relations with another and it was not true, he was fined 100 <i>zuz</i>) or it might have been payment for sexually abusing her (in which case there would be a fine of 50 <i>zuz)</i>. In taking silver and gold from the Egyptians there was reason to construe this as a fine one way or the other. The Israelites were not sure what to do. If Israel took the booty, the nations might have seen this as proof that in fact the women of Israel were sexually abused by the Egyptians. And when God told Abraham about the taking of booty, Abraham refused to mention it for fear that Israel’s actions would make them look guilty. That is why God requested but did not demand that Israel ask for silver and gold. Like the case of Sarah and Avimelech, it would become apparent that this was a fine meant to appease the people of Israel for having defamed their reputation during the years of slavery. By asking it would become clear to others that they didn’t simply take the possessions of the Egyptians as a fine but rather asked for it as an appeasement for having humiliated the Israelite women."
                ]
            ],
            "First Fruits Declaration": [
                [],
                [],
                [
                    "<b>He went down to Egypt: Compelled by the Divine Word</b>: Rabbi Moshe Alshich<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rabbi Moshe Alshich, a well known <i>Kabbalist</i> and commentator, lived from 1508 - 1593</i> explained that our forefather Isaac wished to go to Egypt in order to begin the four hundred years of slavery as foreigners in a strange land which had been predicted to Abraham, but God would not allow him to do so. He said: “Don’t go down to Egypt; dwell in this land and I will be with you.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Genesis 26:2</i> Even though Isaac dwelt for some time in the land of the Philistines, this was actually part of the land that was promised to his descendents. Isaac knew that the promise made to Abraham could not be fulfilled until one of Abraham’s descendents went down to Egypt. That is why the verse says My father (Jacob) was a wandering Aramean and he went down to Egypt to dwell there – he went down to become the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham. Isaac was compelled by God’s commandment not to go down but Jacob was compelled by God’s commandment to go down to Egypt!"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>They went down to Egypt: Not to settle there but to sojourn there</b>: This teaches how shrewd Jacob was. When children of Jacob went down to Egypt they (and their father) were fearful that their descendents would intermix with the Egyptians and become entrenched there. Jacob chose a set place for his family to live so that if one of them chose to leave the community, they could no longer return even to work.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">101</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, Jacob created the first Ghetto; this way of life was not imposed upon the children of Israel but was adopted by them in order to assure their continued unique identity.</i> This is what the <i>Torah </i>means when it tells us <i>Vayagar Sham,</i> “they sojourned there,” that is, they chose to sojourn there and not dwell permanently among their neighbors. The land that he chose was Goshen: “Now, let your servant dwell in the land of Goshen…”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">102</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Genesis 47:4; However, this verse is a statement by the brothers to Pharaoh and not by Jacob. Maybe the author implies that while they were speaking, Jacob was orchestrating this plan to isolate the family so they would not become assimilated into the general population.</i><br>Despite this plan, it does not appear that Jacob succeeded. When the children of Israel arrived in Egypt they were a quantifiable number of which they could easily keep track – there were only seventy people. But as the generations passed the people multiplied in a unnatural fashion (the <i>Midrash </i>says that every woman gave birth to sextuplets) so that within a short period of time there were so many Israelites that they were too numerous to keep count of. In such a case it would have been hard to keep track of the people and hard to keep them from assimilating into their environment. It would have been hard to keep everyone living in one confined area. Thus the <i>Torah</i> says, “With seventy souls your ancestors went down to Egypt but now I have made you more numerous than the stars in the heavens.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">103</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Deuteronomy 10:22</i> As a result the people would no longer have been in the category of a quantifiable number, and not capable of being tracked or counted.<br>In the <i>Talmud Sanhedrin,</i> we find a story in which the emperor who asked Rabban Gamliel what was so impressive about the fact that God could count the stars; even he can do this. Rabban Gamliel made the emperor aware that this is no easy matter since the stars and the heavens are constantly revolving.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">104</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Sanhedrin</i> 39a - Again the Emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: It is written, “He counts the number of the stars etc.” (Psalm 147:4) In what way is that remarkable; I too can count them!' Rabban Gamliel brought some quinces, put them into a sieve, whirled them around, and said: 'Count them.' 'Keep them still,' he requested. Thereupon Rabban Gamliel observed, 'But the Heavens revolve so.' Some say that the Emperor spoke thus to him: 'The number of the stars is known to me.' Thereupon Rabban Gamliel asked him, 'How many molars and [other] teeth have you' Putting his hand to his mouth, he began to count them. Said he to him, 'You know not what is in your mouth and yet wouldst know what is in Heaven!'</i> The insight of this story applies here as well: God compared Israel to the stars because while human beings cannot count the stars, God can; therefore when the Israelites were as numerous as the stars, they were still quantifiable! Jacob, then, did succeed since God could keep track of the people of Israel even as they multiplied in Egypt. Rashi also points out that since Israel was compared to the stars in the heavens, each and every Israelite remained important and significant in the eyes of God. As long as each Jew is counted none will be lost!"
                ],
                [],
                [
                    "<b>The Plague of a Mixture of Wild Animals</b>: There are three reasons given for the plague of <i>Arov</i>, the fourth plague. All three reasons are based on the interpretation of the next two passages of the <i>Haggadah</i>: “Great mighty and populous…” which in turn the <i>Haggadah</i> quotes the following verses, “the Children of Israel were fruitful and multiplied abundantly…”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">105</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exile, 1:7</i> and I have caused you to multiply as the bides (?) of the field, you did grow in stature and beauty, your breasts were fashioned and your hair grew long…”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">106</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ezekiel, 16:7</i> These verses speak of the effect of the persecution of the plagues upon the Israelite women in particular and the miraculous fact that despite the fact that they were oppressed, they miraculously continued to have large numbers of women, even though the persecution had a biological effect upon them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">107</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I’m not going to go into much detail in this section; the commentary talks at length about female puberty and physical development and how Israel’s were affected by the oppression in Egypt. The commentary quotes extensively from the section of the Talmud deal with the laws of <i>Nida</i>h and are not for those with a delicate sensibilities!!</i><br>So what are the three reasons for this plague?<br>First, the Egyptians would terrify the Israelites each day to make them do their job much in the same way that wild beasts terrify human beings when they confront them. God, therefore, terrified the Egyptians by sending a mixture of wild beasts to chase them in Egypt so that they would be terrified in the same way that the Israelites were terrified.<br>Second, the Egyptians, young and old, would lord over the Israelites and order them around and frighten them, so God sent wild beasts large and small to snatch up the Egyptians, young and old in payment for their harsh treatment of the Israelites.<br>These two passages are talking about two types of fear which the Israelites experienced and which were visited upon the Egyptians during the plague. The first type was terror (<i>harada)</i> and the second was fright (<i>ay’mah.</i>) These two emotions have a different affect upon women. Terror causes women to have heavier menstrual bleeding, and therefore causes her to be separated from her husband for longer (though it also means she will be more fertile) while fright diminishes a women’s menstrual flow and thereby decreases her ability to have children. The miracle was despite the natural affect of the oppression on the Israelite women they continued to have many children.<br>Understanding which explanation one chooses for the plague of <i>arov </i>can help us understand the purpose of another plague, <i>shechin,</i> boils. If one argues that the Egyptians tried to separate the Israelite men and women by making the men sleep in the fields and not at home, then the purpose of the boils was to make the Egyptian men odious to their wives so that they would not want to have relations. If that is the case, then the plague of <i>arov</i> was in retaliation for causing fear and worry which decreased menstrual blood and would have allowed couples to have relations.<br>On the other hand, the terrorization of the Israelites might have actually increased their menstrual flow and their fertility. The boils were a punishment for making the Israelite women servants in the baths (which also would have increased their fertility); the boils, then, would have discouraged the Egyptians from going to the baths and would have freed the Israelite women from servitude. This in turn would have allowed the Israelite women to have more children.<br>Finally there is a third reason for the plague of <i>arov.</i> The Israelite women were forced to be nurse maids for the Egyptian infants and to carry the children around all day. God sent the plague of wild animals to take the infants as prey for the sins of the parents! Depsite this hard work, the Israelite women developed with physical beauty (your breasts were fashioned) – and this was part of the miracle with the way in which God watched over the Israelite women in Egypt.<br>Why did the Israelites increase with such unnatural speed, giving birth to sextuplets? God realized that the longer it took for the children of Israel to increase to the number of 600.000 the longer they would have to remain in Egypt. God therefore caused them to increase especially fast so that he could take them out of Egypt before they would succumb to the temptations of idolatry. No matter what the Egyptians tried to do they could not slow down the fecundity of the Israelites since this was part of God’s will to remove them from Egypt as soon as possible. Normally in times of distress and troubles couples refrain from having intimate relations. But here the people of Israel understood were facing a crisis and continued to have relations, just as one who has not fulfilled the <i>mitzvah</i> of ‘be fruitful and multiply’ are allowed to continue to have relations in time of crisis and distress…"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>And the Egyptians dealt ill with us:</b> “Come let us deal wisely with them…” All of this is explained in the <i>Haggadah.</i><br><b>And many</b>: If you desire to eat the fruits of Genosar, you’ll find them in <i>Parshat Shemot</i>!<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This appears to be a popular saying. Genosar is a region around the see of Galilee that was known for its rich and succulent fruit. Originally part of the birth right of the tribe of Naftali, its fruit was so good that it was set aside for royalty. Genosar is explained in the <i>Midrash</i> as <i>Gan shel Sar</i>, the garden of the princes. Here the expression means that if you really want the riches of the story of the Exodus you should go back and read the opening chapters of the second book of the <i>Torah</i> – the book of Exodus, and <i>Parshat Shemot</i> in particular. What is particularly strange here is that the commentary seems to leave out most of the section which deals with the actual story of the Exodus: Deuteronomy 26 – this is the part that most commentators spend the most time on in their commentary. Did you mean Deuteronomy?</i><br><b>And with wonders: this is the blood… ‘I will show wonders in heaven and on earth, blood and fire and pillars of smoke.’</b><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ezekiel 16:7, 6</i> The <i>Kabbalists</i> explain that if the <i>Sefirah of binah</i> is considered to be absolute compassion in relation to the lower <i>Sephirot</i>, how is it possible that this <i>Sephirah</i> aroused judgment from the aspect of <i>binah</i>? They explain this through a parable. If a fire is burning and there is a tree nearby, the fire will singe the branches and create smoke. It is from the fire and the heat of the<i> yetzer hara </i>which is below it that <i>binah </i>creates smoke and that the wrath of judgment arises from it. Blood is related to water which is compassion (<i>rachamim</i>) while the fire finds its source in <i>gevurah,</i> severity and judgment. The combination of these two qualities <i>hesed and gervurah,</i> water and fire, is smoke. This smoke rises up along with the heat it generates a fire even in the Sephirah of<i> binah</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See the picture above. The first three Sephirot are all associated with compassion since they are the highest Sephirot. <i>Gervurah, </i>on the other hand, is harsh judgment and is also the source of the other side, and the <i>Yetzer Harah</i> is contrast to <i>Hese</i>d which is associated with loving kindness. Good luck making sense out of this <i>kabbalistic</i> statement – or why <i>binah </i>was raised in the first place.</i>"
                ]
            ],
            "The Ten Plagues": [
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [
                    "<b><i>D’tzakh, Adash, Ba’acha</i>v</b>: Beginning with the abbreviation for the plagues, we have a series of mathematical interpretations of the number of plagues: first, Rabbi Yossi HaGallili who said there were ten plagues in Egypt and fifty at the sea; then, Rabbi Eliezer who said there forty plagues in Egypt and two hundred at the sea; and finally, Rabbi Akiva who claimed there were fifty plagues in Egypt and two hundred fifty at the sea. If God struck Egypt during the plagues with “a finger” and at the sea it was the “hand of God” then the plagues at the sea were five times more than the plagues in Egypt. But what purpose do these mathematical calculations serve?<br>To understand the significance of the number of plagues, we must look back at a discussion in the <i>Midrash</i> and the <i>Talmud </i>between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir. The <i>Torah</i> tells us that there were seventy descendents of Jacob who went down to Egypt, but when we actually count the number we find there were only sixty nine! Rabbi Meir suggests that Yocheved, the mother of Moses, was born on the way into Egypt and that she was the seventieth descendent. Rabbi Yehudah argues that Dan had two, and not one, descendant, making the number that went down to Egypt seventy in the first place.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">108</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>Midrash</i> actually says the <i>Torah</i> text of Rabbi Meir was not the same as the <i>Torah</i> text of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yehudah’s text, like ours, says <i>b’nai Dan Hushim,</i> the sons of Dan <i>Hushim, </i>while Rabbi Meir’s text says <i>ben Dan Hushim</i>, the son of Dan, is <i>Hushim</i>. The name <i>Hushim</i> looks like a plural noun supporting the idea that this is a plural statement. On the other hand, this would be the only statement in this passage in which a descendant is listed not by his actual name but by his group. Rabbi Yehudah, then, takes the plural as proof that Dan had two sons, while Rabbi Meir reads the text as singular and says that there really are only 69 who went down to Egypt until Yocheved was born <i>bayn hachomot, </i>between the walls of the city (in other words on the way into the city). The <i>Midrash</i> makes the argument a little differently - since the child of Dan had a large family, he was considered to be like two descendents.</i><br>There are many places in our literature in which a difference of one is ignored, both in the Bible and in later rabbinic literature. For instance we are told to count fifty days in the <i>Omer</i>, and yet we really only count forty nine days. The <i>R’ash</i> (1270-ca 1340), a respected <i>Torah</i> authority, suggests that this is a common practice in the Bible. When the Bible says seventy people went down to Egypt, it simply ignores the missing seventieth. Similarly, we are told that when a person is flogged for breaking a negative commandment, he receives thirty nine lashes in stead of the forty which the <i>Torah</i> seems to prescribe.<br>Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah, however, disagree on this last matter, Rabbi Yehudah insisting on forty lashes and Rabbi Meir suggesting consistent with his earlier opinion that we only administer thirty nine lashes, similar to the perspective that the <i>R’ash</i> presented. According to Rabbi Meir, the number must be thirty nine since the number of lashes must be divisible by three since they were administered in three equal groupings, while Rabbi Yehudah says we administer three groupings of plagues and one extra lashing in the middle his back.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">109</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Talmud Makot</i> 22a- 23a for a more complete discussion of this topic.</i><br>We can now return to the subject of the plagues in Egypt. The plagues were similar to lashings, and the same disagreement regarding the counting of the plagues can be found here as we saw with Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Yehudah, each plague was like four plagues, thus making forty plagues similar to the number of lashes – and, like Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion, it is not necessary to divide them into thirds so the number forty stands. It is for this reason that Rabbi Yehudah divides the plagues up into three groupings - <i>d’tzakh, adash, ba’achav - </i>that are not equal in number<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">110</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since the last grouping consists of four instead of three plagues.</i> – they simply represent the forty ‘lashes’ that the Egyptians received in Egypt.<br>But what is the reason that the plagues at the sea were so much greater than the number of plagues that the Egyptians experienced in Egypt? This is based on a rule in Jewish law: if an Israelite is sold as a slave and his value increased in the course of his servitude, and then he was sold to a non-Jew, his Jewish master must reimburse him for the increase in his value.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">111</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words if he was worth 100 <i>manna</i> when he was first bought but the master now sells him for five hundred <i>manna</i>, he would get the additional four hundred <i>manna</i>.</i> Similarly, the Israelites were few in number at the time of their descent into Egypt and they increased so greatly in the course of their sojourn. The Egyptians were only entitled to enslave the number of people who would have been born by natural increase and not the full population increase. The <i>Midrash </i>tells us that every woman gave birth to sextuplets. The five times that the Egyptians were punished at the sea was meant to make up for the extra five children born in to every woman!!<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">112</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ha!! That is great math!</i><br>Rabbinic and <i>Kabbalistic</i> literature speaks of three types of lashes. First, there are the lashes of an earthly court, which are thirty nine. This number is based on the fact that the lashes could not be given to an individual until he reached the age of 13 – and since the lashes were divided into three groups they were three times 13 or thirty nine. The second type of lashes was lashes of fire, or <i>pulsa dinura.</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">113</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, lashes of fire. The origin of this phrase seems to come from the <i>Babylonian Talmud</i>, in tractate <i>Hagigah</i> 15a. In an <i>Aggadic</i> section concerning the heresies of Elisha ben Abuya, an account is given of Elisha’s encounter with the angel Metatron and the subsequent erroneous course of action taken by him. The seeming mistake of Metatron established him as being liable to receive a sentence of 60 <i>Pulsei</i> (pl. of <i>‘Pulsa’) D'nura</i>: The Talmud says, “They took out Metatron and lashed him with 60 pulses of fire.\"</i> The heavenly court only gave this punishment to an individual when he reached the age of 20 – three sets of 20 equal 60 lashes. And finally, the third type of lashes is called the lashes of Samael. Samael, the demonic being, was punished with fifty lashes for trying to make himself like God. These were the type of lashes that were meted out to Pharaoh and the Egyptians. They received this punishment for acting as if Samael was a divine being. Each form of lashes was for a different transgression, and, in the case of the different numbers of plagues, the mathematics suggests that each had a different opinion why the Egyptians were punished.<br>Rabbi Yossi HaGallili suggests that the punishment of the Egyptians was <i>pulsa dinura</i>. When we put together the plagues in Egypt and the plagues at the sea the equal sixty, just like the lashes of fire describe by the <i>Kabbalists</i>.<br>Rabbi Eliezer was of the opinion that the Egyptians were punished for transgressing the negative commandment, “You shall not work your firstling oxen.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">114</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Deuteronomy 15:19</i> God said: “I have written in my <i>Tora</i>h, do not enslave my firstling; Israel is my firstling. Therefore I will charge you with breaking this negative commandment and will punish you with lashes that come in the form of plagues.” First, Egypt was punished with forty plagues in Egypt. But the number forty is not divisible by three. When we add the two hundred plagues that Egypt experienced at the sea to this number, together they equal 240, so that the Egyptians were punished with three groups of eighty plagues each!<br>Finally, we have the opinion of Rabbi Akiva who believed that Pharaoh and Egypt were punished for making themselves like gods with fifty plagues – this is the lashes of Samael. Pharaoh and his country received fifty plagues in Egypt just as Samael was punished with fifty plagues. While fifty is not divisible by three, we can add these fifty plagues with the two hundred and fifty plagues at the sea, they equal three hundred plagues. This number is divisible by three as well."
                ]
            ],
            "Dayenu": [],
            "Rabban Gamliel's Three Things": [
                [
                    "<b>Rabban Gamliel said: One who doesn’t mention three things on Passover has not fulfilled his obligation. They are <i>pesach, matzah, </i>and<i> maror</i></b>: All of these things are mentioned in the <i>Mishnah</i> which concludes: “In every generation each person is obligated to see himself as if he personally went forth from Egypt…” Rava adds: He must also say: “And us he freed from there that he might take us…”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Deuteronomy 6:23</i> There are several surprising things about this passage!<br>The <i>Talmud </i>makes the following statement: In our time we do not eat the <i>matzah</i> and the <i>maror </i>together since <i>matzah </i>is a <i>Tora</i>h commandment and <i>maror</i> is a rabbinic commandment – the rabbinic commandment would disqualify the <i>Torah</i> commandment. In the time of the Temple, however, when all three foods were <i>Torah </i>commandments and were consumed together then there was no question since they were all eaten at once. To understand this statement we must return to the earlier discussion regarding why we eat the <i>matzah </i>before the<i> maror.</i> Since the<i> maror </i>symbolizes slavery and the <i>matzah</i> symbolizes freedom, we should have eaten the <i>maror</i> before we ate the <i>matzah.</i> And nowadays when we eat them separately we must wonder why we eat them in the wrong order. This was not a question in the time of the temple since all three could be consumed together in a sandwich. The same question arises regarding Rabban Gamliel’s statement. Why does he say that we should mention <i>pesach, matzah, and maror; maror </i>should have been mentioned before the <i>matzah. </i>In the time of the Temple, while all three were consumed together, the same question could be asked about which should be mentioned first: the <i>matzah or the maror</i>?<br> The answer to this question can be found in the following statement in the <i>Mishnah: </i>“In every generation one should see himself as if he personally went forth from Egypt…” The Shach<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rabbi Shabtai Hakohen Katz (1621-1663?) A well known and respected commentator on the <i>Shulchan Aruch </i>on <i>halachic</i> matters</i> comments on the order in this statement by suggesting that it is not talking about the Exodus but about Israel’s future experience: <i>matzah</i> alludes to freedom. When our actions are proper we will be free but if not we will experience <i>maror</i>, bitterness. The Shach suggests that <i>maror</i> here is referring to Israel’s subjugation to the four great kingdoms. That is why <i>maror</i> is mentioned last in the verse. We begin then with <i>matzah</i> – because we are suppose to see ourselves as among those who went out of Egypt and are free. We then receive a warning – if our actions are not proper we will experience bitterness. Even though we are now living in exile and in bitterness, we do not mention this first because we are obligated to see ourselves as one of those who went forth from Egypt, just like the people of the generation of the Exodus.<br>What does Rava’s statement add to this discussion? We have already seen that for some people, <i>matzah</i> symbolizes slavery since it was the food which slaves eats (it is difficult to digest). If that is the case then <i>matzah</i> and <i>maro</i>r are both symbols of slavery. Rava’s statement emphasizes that <i>matzah</i> is a symbol of freedom since ‘God took us out from there.’ When Rava suggests we should also make this statement, he is alluding to the fact that only one fiftieth of the Israelites left Egypt – the rest died because they became impure and worshipped idols. Therefore we say “And US He freed from there.” – We were freed and not the others who died during the plague of darkness.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the <i>Midrash</i>, all those Israelites who were unworthy of redemption mysteriously disappeared during the plague of darkness, According to Rabbi Ginzburg, only one out of fifty of the Israelites left Egypt. This number is based on the verse <i>hamushim alu banai,</i> Now the Israelites went up armed. (Exodus 13:18) The word <i>hamushim,</i> armed, is understood here as<i> Hamishim </i>– one fiftieth.</i>"
                ]
            ],
            "First Half of Hallel": [
                [],
                [
                    "<b>Therefore it is our duty to thank, to praise…and a new song was recited before Him, Halleluyah!</b> This translation is based on a variant reading of the <i>Haggadah</i> text. While most texts read <i>v‘nomar lifanav shira chadasha, “</i>Let us sing a new song before Him,” Rabbi Ginzburg reads the text<i> v’ne’emar lifanav shira chadasha </i>“A new song was recited before Him.” This interpretation is based on a discussion in <i>Talmud </i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Pesachim</i> 117a</i> which claims that several miracles took place on Passover eve throughout the ages, and in each case the words of <i>Hallel</i> were recited. At the shore of the Red Sea, Moses and the Israelites said: “Not for us, Lord, not for us but for Yourself wine (we give?) praise;” <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Psalm 115:1</i>to which God responded: “For my sake, My own sake, do I act –lest my name be dishonored, I will not give my glory to another.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Isaiah 48:11 These verses are connected because of the similar style of repetition in them. In the first one, Israel says - Not for us but for your own sake. And to this, God responds - for My own sake.</i> This same conversation also took place in the time of Joshua as he fought against the other nations living in the land of Canaan, in the time of Hezekiah as he fought with Sennacherib, and in the generation of Mordechai and Esther as they dealt with Haman’s plot against the Jews. In each case the people of Israel cried out to God to save them for His own sake if not for their sake, and God responded that He would do so for His own sake.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>Talmud</i> records several other cases when this took place.</i><br>We are taught by the <i>Tur<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Tur Orech Chaim </i>218</i> </i>that when we come across a place where a miracle occurred we should mention all the other miracles that occurred in that place. And that is what we do in this passage in the <i>Haggadah</i>. That is why we say, “It is our duty to give thanks and praise…the one who did all the miracles for our ancestors and for us…” First we mention miracles in the plural – that is, we celebrate not just the miracle of the Exodus but all the miracles which took place on this day. Second we make a reference to the miracles which both we and our ancestors experienced as a way of saying that we are speaking not just about the miracles in Egypt but the miracles throughout the ages, as the <i>Talmud</i> suggests. And we make reference to all the miracles that took place at this time by saying a new song was recited on this day. <i>Shira chadasha,</i> a new song, is a reference to the song which was song at the sea. It is also called a <i>shira,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">98</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 15:1 – the problem with Ginzburg’s interpretation is that the word <i>shira</i> is feminine which means that the word<i> v’ne’emar s</i>hould also be feminine if we choose to read the word this way. Grammar is not one of Rabbi Ginzburg’s strengths. This is not a problem as we read the word <i>v’nomar</i>, And we will recite.</i></i> just as the song at the Read Sea is referred to as a shira. This was but the first of many songs which were recited on this day."
                ]
            ],
            "Second Cup of Wine": [
                [],
                [
                    "<b>Praised are You, Lord …who redeemed us and redeemed our ancestors and enabled us to reach this night:</b> Even though we are celebrating Passover, the festival of freedom, we are aware we are doing on this night of exile when we are not completely free. Why, then, do we say that God redeemed us and redeemed our ancestors? Had He not redeemed our ancestors we would never have been redeemed. Also we are supposed to see ourselves as if we personally went forth from Egypt – so God redeemed us as well. We must do the same as the generation which went for from Egypt – we eat <i>matzah</i> before we eat the <i>maror</i> – since at this time we are free and the bitterness is merely a threat if we fail to observe God’s laws!",
                    "<b>Even so…enable us to reach this night when we eat matzah and maror; so may we reach in peace other holy days and festivals when we may rejoice in the restoration of Zion…and find delight in serving You: </b><i>Talmud Kiddushin</i> discusses when and for whom the mitzvah of eating matzah applies. We find two verses in the Torah: “You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your settlements you shall eat unleavened bread,”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">99</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 12:20</i> and “And so when the Lord has brought you to the land of the Canaanites…you shall observe this month the following practice.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">100</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 13:5</i>  At first glance these two verses appear to be troubling because they place limits on when we are obligated to eat <i>matza</i>h. The first one suggests that we must observe the commandment of eating <i>matzah</i> only if there is also a Passover offering. The word ‘settlements’ suggests we should observe it in our dwelling places, that is, at all times even if there is no longer a Passover offering. The second verse suggests that we only have to observe the commandment of <i>matzah</i> in the land – but not outside the land. The sages, therefore, interpret this verse to mean by observing Passover, outside the land of Israel, we will merit the privilege of returning to the land of Israel. The sages reconcile the two verses in the following way: the first verse teaches us that we must observe the <i>mitzvah</i> of eating <i>matzah</i> even when we can no longer bring sacrifice within the land of Israel, and the second verse teaches us that we must eat <i>matzah</i> even outside the land of Israel when the temple.<br>The language of this blessing supports this interpretation of these two verses. First, we thank God who ‘enabled us to reach this night (during this time of exile) and eat <i>matzah</i> and <i>maror</i>;’ that is, we must eat them even when the Temple no longer exists and we can not offer the <i>Pesach </i>offering. And lest one say, ‘we are not obligated to do so outside the land of Israel,’ we go on to say, May we reach in peace other holidays...and find delight in serving you,” suggesting as the <i>Talmud</i> does that by observing Passover outside the land of Israel we will be privileged to return to observe the holiday in the land of Israel!"
                ]
            ]
        },
        "Rachtzah": [],
        "Motzi Matzah": [
            [],
            [],
            [
                "<b><i>HaMotzi lechem</i>: </b>The sages decreed that we should say <i>HaMotzi lechem min ha’aretz,</i> but there is a question whether the blessing should be <i>Motzi lechem…</i>in stead of <i>HaMotzi.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">115</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Talmud Berachot</i> 38a.</i> </i>Everyone agrees that <i>Motzi</i> implies past tense: “God brought forth bread from the earth.” The question is what the implications of<i> HaMotzi</i>: does it imply the past or the future? On the one hand, we learn that in the Garden of Eden, God literally caused the bread to sprout forth from the earth. On the other hand the same is predicted for the end of time; in the end of time, when the sin in the garden has been rectified, God will cause the bread to come forth from the earth. When we say <i>HaMotzi,</i> then, we imply that it refers to both the past and the future, while <i>Motzi</i> would only apply to the past."
            ]
        ],
        "Maror": [],
        "Korech": [
            [],
            [],
            [
                "<b>Hillel, and How we Eat Pesah<i>, Matzah, and Maror</i>:</b> Hillel and the sages disagreed on this matter. Hillel said that during the time of the Temple in Jerusalem, one should eat <i>pesah, matzah and maror</i> together as a sandwich as the verse says, <i>al matzot u’marorim;</i> while the sages emphasized the last part of the verse, <i>yoch’luhu</i>, “You shall eat it,” meaning that each one can be consumed separately. In other words, Hillel emphasized the first part of the proof text while the sages emphasized the last part of the text. But the controversy between them is even more complicated than just the interpretation of this verse.<br>Elsewhere in the <i>Talmud</i>, however, <i>Beit Hillel</i> interprets the verse, “On the day when the Lord made the earth and the heavens,”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">116</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Genesis 2:4</i> to mean that God created the earth before He created the heaven, while the sages interpreted the verse to mean that the two were created simultaneously; since we can only recite one word at a time, heaven and earth are written separately. This controversy is relevant to our present discussion. According to <i>Beit Hillel,</i> that which comes first in a verse also comes first in action as well. But if that is the case then shouldn’t <i>matzah </i>take precedence over <i>maror</i> at the <i>Seder</i> since it is written first in the verse? The sages, on the other hand, seem to be presenting Hillel’s point of view. Like the earth and heaven being created simultaneously, we should eat the three elements of the Passover offering at once! So why, then, do the sages disagree with Hillel in the matter of eating the Hillel sandwich?<br>The sages would agree with Hillel; optimally, it is best to eat the three items together in a sandwich. After the fact, however, would disagree with Beit Hillel. The Sages would say it is ok to eat the Passover offering, <i>matzah</i> and <i>maror</i> separately from one another. Hillel, on the other hand would argue that in the time of the Temple one had to eat the three items together at once; otherwise why would the <i>Torah</i> place the <i>matzah</i> before the <i>maror.</i> This would make no sense since <i>maror</i>, a symbol of the bitterness of slavery, should come before the <i>matzah</i>, the symbol of freedom.<br>We can now understand why the <i>Haggadah</i> makes a point of emphasizing the fact that Hillel ate the <i>pesah, matzah and maror </i>together in the time of the Temple. One might have concluded otherwise based on his interpretation of the verse in Genesis. But because of the verse, “with unleavened bread and <i>maror</i> they shall eat it,” we conclude that in the case of the Passover offering we don’t follow the principle, “that which comes first in the verse also comes first in action as well.” If that was the case here then the verse would have also mentioned the bitter herbs before it mentioned the <i>matzah </i>since <i>maror </i>symbolizes slavery (which came first) and <i>matzah</i> symbolizes freedom (with came afterwards). If Beit Hillel was following its usual perspective here, then it would not have been necessary to mention this at all.<br>And how would the sages explain this? They would say that they are in agreement with Beit Hillel that <i>pesah, matzah and maror</i> should be eaten together but they would disagree with him after the fact. In other words, one should eat them together but if one doesn’t then that’s ok too. That is why the verse says<i> “matzah</i> with<i> maror” </i>implying that they should be consumed in a sandwich as Hillel suggested, but the final word “You shall eat it” implies, ‘but if you didn’t you can fulfill your obligation by eating them separately too."
            ]
        ],
        "Shulchan Orech": [
            [
                "<b><i>Shulchan Orech, Tafun, Barech, Hallel Nirtzah</i></b>: The order of events at the <i>Sed</i>er can be understood based on the statement in <i>Talmud</i>: At the end of <i>Yom Kippur</i>, people would face in the direction of the burning alter (in the northern part of the Temple) so that they would be blessed with abundant grain; they would then face in the direction of the <i>menorah</i> (in the southern part of the Temple) so that they would be blessed with ample fruit.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">117</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Talmud Yoma</i></i> In this statement we do not specifically say wheat and grapes, but rather all types of grain and all fruits, as we see in other statements where wheat and grapes are a reference to all grains and fruits. Similarly, in the time of the Temple, the people would bring an <i>omer </i>of barley to the Temple on Passover so that all the grain production of that year should be blessed, and they would bring an offering of bread on <i>Shavuo</i>t so that all the fruit of the coming year should be blessed as well. These offering would bring down the abundance and divine blessings from above.<br>Nowadays since we don’t have a Temple and an altar, the dinner table has become our altar. The offerings which we put out on the table bring the divine blessings from above. The wheat for <i>matzah</i> and the grapes for the wine are now our offerings. This is hinted at the poem which we sing at the beginning of the <i>Seder</i> and the order of events which take place on this night. We say, through the table that was set (in the Temple and now in our home) that was in the tzafon<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">118</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word<i> tzafon</i>, north, is a play on <i>tzafun,</i> hidden – the word we use for the <i>afikomen.</i></i>, the northern part of the Temple precincts, and that we now enact through the <i>afikomen (tzafun),</i> may we be blessed, <i>barech,</i> with abundant food from God in the coming year! And <i>Hallel, Nirtzah</i> means, as we recite the <i>Hallel </i>service over a cup of wine, may our offering be accepted (<i>Nirtzah</i>) so that we are blessed with an abundant year of fruit and food! The <i>Talmu</i>d says that songs were only sung in the Temple at the time of the libations, the pouring of a wine offering on the altar. Similarly, the <i>Talmud </i>says that one who wishes to offer a wine libation should fill his throat with the songs of scholars; thus when we drink a cup of wine at the <i>Seder</i> it is like a libation.<br>While we’re on the subject, let’s look at a related matter. The sages tell us that we only sing songs of praise when we offer a wine libation.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">119</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Talmud Arachin</i> This is based on a verse: “And the vine said to them: Should I leave my wine, which cheers God and man, and go to hold sway over the trees?”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">120</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Judges 9:10</i> Now this verse suggests that wine cheers both human beings and God, but the <i>Talmud</i> asks – in what way does wine cheer God? The answer is – it cheers God because we sing songs of praise to God when we drink wine and offer libations. And yet elsewhere in the <i>Talmud</i> we find a very different point of view. We are told that Jews find joy on the festivals not in wine but in meat, for men, and in fine clothing for women. It was only after the Temple was destroyed and there were no longer peace offerings that wine became the primary form of religious joy and celebration for us. This would suggest that the two forms of joy are independent and separate from one another – contradicting the verse above which says that God and man both rejoice in wine. In other words, in the time of the Temple, Jews rejoiced in the peace offering but God rejoiced in the offering of libations; after the Temple was destroyed Jews rejoiced in the drinking of wine but since the Temple had been destroyed and there were no offerings and no libations, how could God rejoice?<br>In the time of the Temple, however, the offering of the peace offering or any other animal offering was always accompanied by the offering of libations – so that God could rejoice in the singing of the Levites. So in fact the two always accompanied one another; when the peace offering was made the people also brought wine which would cause God to rejoice as well."
            ]
        ],
        "Tzafun": [],
        "Barech": {
            "Birkat Hamazon": [
                [],
                [],
                [],
                [
                    "<b>Birkat Hamazon</b>: It is written in the<i> Zohar</i> that by participating in the<i> zimmun<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">121</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A <i>zimmun</i> is the introductory lines which are recited before the grace which can only be said if there is at least three people present.</i></i> before the Grace after Meals, we weaken the demonic forces which might attack us in the world. This idea is based on the belief<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">122</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Talmud Pesachim</i> that doubles are unlucky. For instance, one should not drink two cups of wine – rather, one should drink a third. Similarly two people should not walk in the streets together lest they be attacked by spirits. Evil spirits have no power over threes. Perhaps the reason for this that the evil spirits are formed from two elements – fire and wind – therefore they have the ability to have control over twos, but not over things that are made up of threes. We learn that the Grace should be introduced by three from the verse, <i>gadlu ladonai itee…<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">123</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Psalm 34:4</i></i> “Ascribe greatness to the Lord with me.” <i>Gadlu</i> is plural so it counts for two and the word <i>itee</i>, “with me,” refers to one; together they equal three. We ascribe greatness to the lord in the presence of three. So when three are together blessing God we in fact weaken the <i>sitra achra</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">124</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Other Side is the term used in Zohar for the demonic realm. In Kabbalistic thought there is a strong belief in the existence of the a demonic realm. This realm is not anti-god but actually is an outgrowth of the Sephirah of Gevurah or Din, stern judgment, so that even the demonic is a part of God. Kabbalists discuss why evil is part of the divine plan for the universe.</i> the demonic realm.<br>The different blessings of the <i>Birkat Hamazon</i> resulted from historic events in Jewish history. The first passage, that, God feeds everyone, was composed by Moses in response to the bestowal of manna for the people of Israel in the wilderness. Joshua decreed the second paragraph, “For the good land and the food” when the people began the conquest of the land.<br>Jewish law discusses the obligation of a master toward his servant. Jewish law states that a person who has a non-Jewish slave can say to him, ‘you shall work for me but I am not obligated to feed you.’ For an Israelite slave, however, the master has an obligation to provide him with food, based on the verse, “But should he say…I don’t want to leave you…and he is happy with you.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">125</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Deuteronomy 15:16 – the assumption seems to be that for an Israelite slave it is actually good to be a servant since his master has an obligation to properly provide for him. We may be troubled with the idea that a non-Jewish slave or an <i>Eved Canaani</i> was treated differently than a Israelite slave. For the purpose of this discussion, this is the assumption that Rabbi Ginzburg makes – the discussion of why this is the case will have to reserved for another time.</i> This is the reason for the statement of the sages, “One who acquires an Israelite slave, acquires a master for himself.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">126</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Talmud Kiddushin 20a</i> The Torah tells us that we are like Israelite slaves in relation to God. The Torah says, “For it is to me that the Israelites are slaves: they are my servants who I freed from the land of Egypt.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">127</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Leviticus 25:55</i> Since we have the status of Israelite slaves in relation to God, God has an obligation to provide us with food. The Midrash tells us that it is the way of the world for a servant to serve his master: to carry a lantern before him, etc. God said, “I have changed the general custom of the world. Generally the slave does for his master; I do for my servants,” as it says “The Lord went before them…to give them light.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">128</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 13:21</i> It is generally the custom for the servant to carry the burden for his master, but with regard to Israel the Torah says, ”I shall carry you on the wings of eagles.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">129</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 19:4</i> Following this line of reasoning, why did God change the general custom with regard to the Israelites and make himself a servant to them?<br>When the Israelites left Egypt God treated them like Hebrew slaves: God fed them <i>manna,</i> the food of angels, and he gave them fresh bread each day just as the master of servants would receive<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">130</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Manna</i> is after all, ‘bread from heaven.’</i>. Not only that, but he gave them food every day rather than once a year as one might do with slaves. But God also called the Israelites ‘children,’ a term which would have had a different status in the eyes of Jewish law. The <i>Torah </i>says, “Israel is my first born.” And yet a parent has no obligation to provide food for his son once he reaches the age of <i>Bar Mitzvah</i>. It is not an obligation but it is a mitzvah to do so if the child is going to study Torah.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">131</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ginzburg makes an interesting contrast here between mitzvah and <i>hiyyuv,</i> commandment and <i>mitzvah</i> obligation. From his perspective, they are not the same!</i> Similarly, the master of a non-Israelite slave has no obligation to provide food for his servant. The Israelite, then, received food from the perspective of an obligation but not as a son or as a non-Israelite. It seems strange that the son who is similar to one who serves out of love receives less than the Hebrew slave, who serves his master out of fear!<br>We can now understand the language of the first blessing of the <i>Birkat HaMazon</i>. The passage begins by saying that, “God gives bread to all flesh, with grace, with kindness and with compassion;” that is, God supports all human beings freely and unconditionally, be they non-Jewish slave or Israelites. He supports non-Jewish slaves out of compassion and He provides for Israelites who serve Him out of love because they are like His ‘children,’ even though he has no obligation to do so. And lest one think that God provides food because we are his servants who serve God out of fear rather than love, the first paragraph goes on to say, “You provide bread for all your creatures; as your love endures forever.” This is a reference to one who serves God out of fear. God provides because His kindness is ‘forever.’<br>So what is the difference between one who serves God out of love and one who serves God out of fear? The Midrash says that one who serves God out of fear is protected for one thousand generations while one who serves God out of love is protected and provided for two thousand generations. Both receive God’s love but the one who serves out of love is more deserving of God’s blessing.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">132</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I don’t claim to understand what Rabbi Ginzburg is getting at here or how this ties into the first paragraph of the Grace after Meals. Whichever type of servant we are talking about here – either the one who serves out of love or the one who does so out of fear of God is the recipient of God’s kindness. God feeds us not because we are worthy of His goodness but because God is compassionate and kind to all his creatures. In the end we are all unworthy – the non-Jewish slave, the Hebrew servant who serves God out of fear or the one who does so out of love. We are all recipients of God’s constant love.</i>"
                ]
            ],
            "Third Cup of Wine": [],
            "Pour Out Thy Wrath": [
                [],
                [
                    "<b>Pour out Your Wrath</b>: The commentators wonder why these verses appear here in the middle of the Hallel service; each offers a different explanation for this passage. I will offer my own explanation here.<br>The <i>Midrash </i>speaks of four kings who each offer a different plea for God’s assistance in the face of their enemies.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">133</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lamentations Rabbah Proem 30: <br>There were four kings, David, Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Hezekiah--not one asked of God what each of the others was to ask. David asked, \"Let me pursue mine enemies and overtake them, and not turn back till they are consumed\" (Ps. 18:38; 2 Sam. 22:38). The Holy One replied, \"I will help you do so.\" <br>…..Then Asa rose up and asked, \"I--in me there is no strength to slay them. All that I can do is pursue them. You slay them.\" The Holy One replied, \"I will do so.\" Hence it is said, \"Asa and the people that were with him pursued them. . . . None remained alive: for they were shattered before the Lord\" (2 Chron. 14:12)--not \"before Asa,\" but \"before the Lord.\" <br>Then Jehoshaphat rose up and asked, \"I--I have not the strength either to slay or to pursue, but I will utter a song, and You do [the pursuing and the slaying].\" The Holy One replied, \"I will do so.\" Then, \"when they be gan to sing and to praise, the Lord set an ambush against the Ammonites . . . and they were smitten\" (2 Chron. 20:22). <br>Finally, Hezekiah rose up and asked, \"I--I have not the strength to slay, to pursue, or to utter song, but I will sleep in my bed, and You do what is required.\" The Holy One replied, \"I will do so.\" Then \"it came to pass that night that the angel of the Lord went forth and smote in the camp of the Assyrians\" (2 Kings 19:35).</i> The verses which begin <i>shefoch chamatcha </i>are meant to echo the sentiments of these kings. These verses express the idea that through song, we pray that God will mete out justice to the nations who oppress Israel. Since we cannot pursue or kill our enemies, we ask God to “Pour out Your wrath,” and we offer our songs of praise as an offering just as Jehoshaphat did. To the plea that we cannot pursue the enemies of Israel we ask God to: “Pursue them with wrath…” And to the cry that we cannot kill our enemies we say, “Annihilate them from beneath the heavens of the Lord.”<br>It is surprising that in the opening verse, <i>shefoch chamatcha, </i>the nations are mention before the kings: we say “Pour out your wrath against the nations….” and then, “And against the kingdoms…<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">134</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>mamlachot, </i>kingdoms, is taken by Ginzburg as a reference to the monarchy and the royalty and not to the nation as a whole.</i>” Normally shouldn’t the king be mentioned before the people?<br>First we learn from these verses that God is angry at both the nations and their leaders for worshipping false gods. The verses offer two reasons why the nations and their leaders do this. First, they do so, “Because they do not know you,” (that is they do not recognize the existence of God) and second, because while they do acknowledge the existence of God they choose to not believe that God cares about what happens in this world. According to these nations and leaders, God is indifferent to the events of this world and turns over the overseeing of the world to the sun, moon and stars. This is expressed in the second half of the verse which says that the nations, “do not call upon Your name.” They refuse to call upon God’s name because they are convinced that God doesn’t really care what happens in this world because they have, “devoured Jacob and laid waste his dwelling place.” These nations refer to our God as the God of gods – he rules over the divine powers of the universe but doesn’t care about the fate of human beings. They are convinced that all destruction and oppression that Israel has faced is proof that God doesn’t really care what they do – so they worship the stars and the heavenly bodies instead of the Holy One.<br>But didn’t Jews also question God’s divine concern when they witnessed the suffering of the Jewish people? The Midrash tells us that Jeremiah ceased calling God <i>HaGibor,</i> “The Mighty One,” when he saw how the Babylonians battered the temple even as God remained silent; and that Daniel would not call God <i>HaNora,</i> The Awesome One, when he saw how the nations enslaved the Jewish people even as God remained silent.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">135</sup><i class=\"footnote\">These words are taken from the opening passage of the Amida; the idea here is that the great leaders of Israel refused to praise God fully having witnessed his failure to protect Israel and the Temple. See Babylonian Talmud Yoma 69b. Rabbi Ginzburg switched the two examples around – he has Jeremiah witnessing the enslavement of the people and Daniel witnessing the destruction of the Temple. I have chosen to follow the order of the temple since he is clearly referring to this passage in the Talmud. No doubt Rabbi Ginzburg is quoting the passage from memory – it would be easy to confuse the two passages.</i> Just as the other nations concluded that God didn’t care about the fate of Israel, it would appear that these great sages also doubted the power of God. Maybe they too believed that God’s providence does not oversee the welfare of Israel.<br>Jeremiah and Daniel, however, were motivated by different concerns. The reason they refused to call God Mighty One and Awesome One is that they knew of God’s deep concern for the truth. They realized that others would look upon Israel’s suffering and assume it must be because God didn’t care about Israel or worst was unable to help them. Therefore they limited the praise with which they spoke about God. One of God’s attributes is truth and to describe God in a way that sounded disingenuous would have been wrong.<br>We know that truth is one of God’s qualities from the verse: “Praise the Lord, all the nations; extol him all the peoples. For great is His kindness toward us and HIS TRUTH IS EVERLASTING.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">136</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Psalm 117</i> Daniel and Jeremiah did not doubt God’s power or His providence but they chose to limit their praise of it in a time of oppression and suffering for the Jewish people. We can surmise the power and providence of God from the fact that despite everything, Israel survived great travails and oppressions. This in itself was a sign that God is the ‘Mighty One’ and the ‘Awesome One.’<br>Returning to the question above, why do we mention the nations before the kings in the verse <i>shefoch chamatcha? </i>Usually when a nation presents itself, doesn’t the king present himself before the people since he is more important? And in the case of many nations presenting themselves before a king wouldn’t the more important nations present themselves first.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">137</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The verse, after all, says “Pour your wrath on the NATIONS,” what nations are we referring to here?</i> Usually the king would want to go first to avoid the wrath of the more powerful king (such as God) that might follow from the presentation. In this case four kings are presenting themselves before the Holy One of Blessing. First Rome enters, because it is the mightiest of the nations. Persia would enter next. But when Persia witnessed the wrath of God upon Rome? Persia would think, “God poured His wrath upon Rome because they destroyed the Temple – since our nation was responsible for helping in the rebuilding of the Temple, He would not do the same to us!” Next Babylonia and Greece would enter before the Holy One. But having witnessed God’s wrath against Rome and Persia, why would they be willing to enter? They would think, “even though we subjugated the Israelites we did not oppress them like the Romans and the Persians!” This suggests that the one who enters first might think that his punishment was not going to be as severe. That is why Rome and Persia entered before the others in the first place.<br><i>Asaf, </i>the author of Psalm 79<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">138</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See the beginning of this psalm.</i> from which these verses are taken must have realized this and for this very reason he switched around the order and placed the royalty second and the nation first – so that the punishment of the kings would be more severe than the punishment of the people. He felt it would better for Greece and Babylonia to enter into the presence of the Holy One first so the punishment of Rome <i>(Edom)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">139</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Whenever the Sages find mention of Edom they usually interpret it as a reference to Rome in Midrashic literature.</i></i> and Persia would be more severe! Why were these two nations more deserving of punishment? Because Persia “devoured Jacob,” and Rome “laid waste His dwelling place,” that is they destroyed the Holy Temple. Similarly, the leaders of a nation deserve a more severe punishment when they cause their people to go astray and sin…they should also go second rather than lead the nation to judgment. The verses in Psalm 79 make it clear that whether the leaders and the nation go first or last does not matter – God will pour out his wrath upon them and punish them for their oppression of Israel."
                ]
            ]
        },
        "Hallel": {
            "Second Half of Hallel": [],
            "Songs of Praise and Thanks": [],
            "Fourth Cup of Wine": []
        },
        "Nirtzah": {
            "Chasal Siddur Pesach": [],
            "L'Shana HaBaa": [],
            "And It Happened at Midnight": [],
            "Zevach Pesach": [],
            "Ki Lo Na'e": [],
            "Adir Hu": [
                [
                    "<b><i>Adir Hu, </i>Mighty is He! </b> “May HE build HIS Temple soon; speedily, speedily; in our life time may it be!” In discussing on what day the redemption would take place, the sages conclude that it would be on the fifteenth of Nissan – on Passover. In discussing this matter, Rashi wonders; since the building of the Temple does not take precedence over the observance of the Sabbath or the Holy Days, how can the third Temple be built on the fifteenth of Nissan which is the first day of Passover. He answers that this prohibition only applies to human construction and not the divine construction of the Temple. We read in the Bible, “The sanctuary of the Lord, which YOU shall establish.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">140</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Exodus 15:17</i> Since the Holy One of Blessing will be the one to build the Third Temple this construction project can take place on the festival. That is why we can chant in the words of the poet, “Speedily, speedily in our day…” since the building of the Temple could conceivably begin right at this moment!!” “May HE build HIS Temple,” – we mean this quite literally!<br>Similarly, even though God swore never to let the Jewish people enter His Temple, “Therefore in my indignation did I swear never to let enter my (place of) rest,” we will be able to enter the Temple. This is like the parable of a king who banished his children from his palace and said he would never let them enter this palace. What did the King do? When he forgave his children he knocked down his old palace and built a new one so that they could enter without his having to break the oath that he made. We read, “I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, they shall never hold their peace day nor night…who…take no rest, and give Him no rest, until He establishes and makes Jerusalem full of praise in the earth.’”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">141</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Isaiah 62:6-7</i> And yet we also ask God to rebuild Jerusalem so that the remnant can enter it. Yet if God has set guards upon the walls of Jerusalem this would seem to suggest that it doesn’t have to be rebuilt! This suggests that the temple was not really burned down but was hidden away for future generations so that even God will not have to rebuild it on the festival! But brings us back to our first question: If the temple was not destroyed, how can we enter it since God swore never to let us “enter His place of rest.” Therefore we must ask God to rebuild Jerusalem so that His oath is no longer in effect and then to let those who are exiled enter the city.<br>So we are left with a controversy. If the Temple was burned and destroyed, then we don’t have to worry about God’s oath forbidding us entry into it. But if it is merely hidden away, then we cannot enter it even when He returns it to its place. Now we can understand why we ask God to personally rebuild the Temple (so we will not be excluded from it). That is also why on the festival of Sukkot we add an extra passage to the end of the Grace after Meals in which we ask the All-Merciful “to reestablish His fallen <i>Sukkah of David</i> for us.” The Holy Temple is referred to as the <i>Sukkah</i> of David.<br>We have a further objection to why Israel might not be able to experience the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. Jewish law teaches us that if a man divorces his wife she is not allowed to live in his neighborhood any more. In the case of our exile God has, in a sense, divorced us. If so what use is there in God rebuilding the Temple? As divorcees from God, we would not be allowed to dwell in His neighborhood, so we would not have access to God’s house or even the courtyard outside of His house. <i>Adir Hu,</i> says, “Your house rebuild,” emphasizing the words, <i>baytcha,</i> “Your house.” But since the Shechinah, the divine presence moved from this place, we are no longer forbidden from entering the Temple, and it is no longer a matter of divorce.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">142</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I am not sure I understand Rabbi Ginzburg’s point here. Is it that by leaving the Temple, the Temple is no longer ‘God’s neighborhood?’ Or is it that this was not so much a divorce as a separation, and therefore Israel is not forbidden to enter the rebuilt Temple.</i><br>Finally, why does the author of <i>Adir Hu</i> add the word, <i>bikarov,</i> “soon” to the opening phrase of the song? This word seems to be redundant and unnecessary. This word teaches us an insight based on a discussion of the law regarding a woman who was raped in the Bible and in the Talmud: If a man rapes a virgin maiden, according to the Torah he must marry her and he is forbidden to ever divorce her.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">143</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Deuteronomy 29:22: If a man comes upon a virgin girl who is not engaged and seizes her and lies with her….he shall pay…she shall be his wife…he can never have the right to divorce her. This halachah troubles us – it is as if after being a victim of rape she is now condemned to marry a man she does not love or certainly does not want. However, one must remember that up until modern times, marriage was not a matter of love but family unity and continuity. As ‘damaged property’ the father of the girl would have a hard time finding a match for her once she lost her virginity; therefore Jewish law forced the culprit to remain married to her. The Talmud in <i>Makkot </i>15a discusses what happens if he does give her a writ of divorce. What if he then agrees to take her back?</i> Even if he divorces her, he must remarry her and does not incur the punishment of lashings. He has not broken the negative injunction against divorcing this woman when he is no longer able to take her back.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">144</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Thus, if the rapist was a Kohen and he divorced her, he cannot remarry her because he is not allowed to marry a divorced woman, even if she was formally his wife. So in this case the Kohen would receive lashes for having illegally divorced his wife!</i><br>Similarly, in a sense, God forced Himself on Israel at Mount Sinai: according to the Midrash, God held the mountain over the heads of the people and threatened them: He said “If you do not accept My Torah I will put this mountain down on you and this place will be your grave!” Therefore God can never completely divorce the Jewish people – He is bound to us by the same penalty as a man who rapes a virgin girl has according to the <i>Torah</i>! However since human life is limited eventually either the man or the woman in this particular marriage referred to above is going to die; if the man divorced his wife he would then be guilty of having divorced her. In the case of God whose life is forever, we might have to wait a very long time since God is not subject to mortality. Therefore we plead with him, “Rebuild Your house soon!” Don’t make us wait a long time to take us back as is Your obligation according to law.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">145</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Wow! Did God, in a sense, rape of Israel when He forced the Torah upon us at Mount Sinai? Did God break his own law and for that reason can never forsake the Jewish people. Is the estrangement of God from Israel also an infraction? Is Israel is a victim of a forced divorce by God? There is much to think about here implied in this statement….</i><br>The refrain of <i>Adir hu, </i>then, answers four reasons why Israel might have doubts about the rebuilding of the Temple: <i>El b’nay baytcha bikarov: </i>God, build your-house soon!<br>1. How can we rebuild the Temple on a festival? We answer, <b><i>EL </i></b><i>B’nay <b></b></i><b>GOD </b>will rebuild the Temple.<br>2. God took an oath never to allow us to enter His house – so how can we enter the Temple. To this we answer <i>El <b>B’NAY, “</b></i>God will build the Temple” so that it will be a new Temple for us to enter and not the one about which he took an oath to exclude us.<br>3. But God divorced us and therefore we can never return to his neighborhood – so what good will it do to rebuild the temple? To this we say <b><i>BAYTCHA</i></b>, “your house.” There was no real divorce here; simply a separation in which the <i>Shechinah</i> left God’s House; therefore we are allowed back in.<br>4. Finally, even if God can never divorce us completely according to Jewish law (as in the case of a man who rapes a virgin); he can leave us alone and forsaken a very long time since His time is timeless. To this we say <i>BIKAROV,</i> “Rebuild Your house SOON.” That is why we ask God not to take to long in reconciling with us – we love Him and want to return to him soon!"
                ]
            ],
            "Sefirat HaOmer": [],
            "Echad Mi Yodea": [],
            "Chad Gadya": []
        }
    },
    "schema": {
        "heTitle": "נפתלי שבע רצון על הגדה של פסח",
        "enTitle": "Naftali Seva Ratzon on Pesach Haggadah",
        "key": "Naftali Seva Ratzon on Pesach Haggadah",
        "nodes": [
            {
                "heTitle": "קדש",
                "enTitle": "Kadesh"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "ורחץ",
                "enTitle": "Urchatz"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "כרפס",
                "enTitle": "Karpas"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "יחץ",
                "enTitle": "Yachatz"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "מגיד",
                "enTitle": "Magid",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "הא לחמא עניא",
                        "enTitle": "Ha Lachma Anya"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "מה נשתנה",
                        "enTitle": "Four Questions"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "עבדים היינו",
                        "enTitle": "We Were Slaves in Egypt"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "מעשה שהיה בבני ברק",
                        "enTitle": "Story of the Five Rabbis"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "כנגד ארבעה בנים",
                        "enTitle": "The Four Sons"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "יכול מראש חודש",
                        "enTitle": "Yechol Me'rosh Chodesh"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "מתחילה עובדי עבודה זרה היו אבותינו",
                        "enTitle": "In the Beginning Our Fathers Were Idol Worshipers"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "ארמי אבד אבי",
                        "enTitle": "First Fruits Declaration"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "עשר המכות",
                        "enTitle": "The Ten Plagues"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "דיינו",
                        "enTitle": "Dayenu"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פסח מצה ומרור",
                        "enTitle": "Rabban Gamliel's Three Things"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "חצי הלל",
                        "enTitle": "First Half of Hallel"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "כוס שניה",
                        "enTitle": "Second Cup of Wine"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "רחצה",
                "enTitle": "Rachtzah"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "מוציא מצה",
                "enTitle": "Motzi Matzah"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "מרור",
                "enTitle": "Maror"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "כורך",
                "enTitle": "Korech"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "שולחן עורך",
                "enTitle": "Shulchan Orech"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "צפון",
                "enTitle": "Tzafun"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "ברך",
                "enTitle": "Barech",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "ברכת המזון",
                        "enTitle": "Birkat Hamazon"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "כוס שלישית",
                        "enTitle": "Third Cup of Wine"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "שפוך חמתך",
                        "enTitle": "Pour Out Thy Wrath"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "הלל",
                "enTitle": "Hallel",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "מסיימים את ההלל",
                        "enTitle": "Second Half of Hallel"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "מזמורי הודיה",
                        "enTitle": "Songs of Praise and Thanks"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "כוס רביעית",
                        "enTitle": "Fourth Cup of Wine"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "נרצה",
                "enTitle": "Nirtzah",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "חסל סידור פסח",
                        "enTitle": "Chasal Siddur Pesach"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "לשנה הבאה",
                        "enTitle": "L'Shana HaBaa"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "ויהי בחצי הלילה",
                        "enTitle": "And It Happened at Midnight"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "זבח פסח",
                        "enTitle": "Zevach Pesach"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "אדיר במלוכה",
                        "enTitle": "Ki Lo Na'e"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "אדיר הוא",
                        "enTitle": "Adir Hu"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "ספירת העומר",
                        "enTitle": "Sefirat HaOmer"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "אחד מי יודע",
                        "enTitle": "Echad Mi Yodea"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "חד גדיא",
                        "enTitle": "Chad Gadya"
                    }
                ]
            }
        ]
    }
}