The seder night ritual is one of the most familiar in Jewish observance. Almost all Jews, observant and non-observant, participate in some form of seder on the night of Pesach. "Why is this night different from all other nights?" asks the Haggadah. The answer, "shebekhol haleilot..." responds that this night is rich with peculiar practices and curious customs: "On this night we eat only matzah...a bitter herb...dip twice...and recline." These bountiful reminders and vivid symbols, recalling our harsh servitude in Egypt, and our miraculous redemption by the hand of God, inexplicably draw the entirety of the Jewish people to this eloquent and demonstrative night. Although we are all familiar with these rites, many are unacquainted with their source, character, and complex inter-relationship. Let us review the various practices of this illustrious and memorable evening.
Which practices on the leil haseder are de'orayta in origin and which are merely derabbanan?
The Torah is explicit in its requirements for the seder night. We must articulate the story of our exodus from Egypt - sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim[1] - and we are obligated to eat the korban pesach,[2] matzah, and maror.[3] However, there is a tannaitic dispute as to the precise method of eating the korban pesach, matzah, and maror. The Gemara[4] relates that Hillel ate them in a sandwich,[5] korekh, whereas rabbanan ruled that one can fulfill one's obligation by eating them separately.
There is a machloket rishonim, however, regarding the substance of Hillel's sandwich. Some rishonim understand that it was composed only of matzah and maror, and did not include the korban pesach which was eaten separately.[6] Other rishonim believe that Hillel's korekh included the korban pesach as well.[7] These two opposing interpretations are reflected in the pesukim themselves. The pasuk "matzot on maror shall you eat it"[8] isolates akhilat korban pesach, while the pasuk "on matzah and maror shall you eat it"[9] conjoins akhilat korban pesach with matzah and maror.
Rishonim further disagree as to the precise nature of the dispute between Hillel and the Rabbis. According to one opinion,[10] Hillel rules that korekh is only required lekhatchilah, but if one eats the components separately, he has bedi'eved fulfilled his obligation. The Rabbis, on the other hand, rule that one can only fulfill his obligation by eating the components separately, and on the contrary, korekh disqualifies the mitzvah since "mitzvot mevattelot zo et zo," concomitant mitzvot nullify each other. A second opinion is that according to Hillel, korekh is absolutely required, and failure to do so precludes the mitzvat akhilah. The Rabbis, though, rule either that it does not matter how you eat it,[11] or according to another variation,[12] one should lekhatchilah eat the components separately, as this is the principal mitzvah, but if one ate it as a sandwich he is nonetheless yotze. Yet a third opinion understands that according to Hillel, korekh is absolutely required, whereas according to the Rabbis eating the components separately is absolutely required.[13]
The Gemara[14] seems uncertain how to rule in the debate between Hillel and the Rabbis. It thus concludes that bizman hazeh we should fulfill both opinions by first eating matzah with a berakhah, and then maror with a berakhah, and then a sandwich of matzah and maror without a berakhah.[15] According to Shulchan 'Arukh,[16] one should not be mafsik between akhilat matzah and maror and the subsequent korekh, so that the berakhot will relate to korekh as well.[17]
The seder is also comprised of rabbinic requirements. Miderabbanan we must drink the four cups - the arba' kosot,[18] dip and eat the karpas,[19] and perform heseibah, leaning.[20] The Gemara[21] states that heseibah is required during the drinking of the arba' kosot[22] and akhilat matzah[23] but not for akhilat maror.[24] However, heseibah might have to accompany other acts as well. The author of the Bach, R' Yoel Sirkis, understands[25] that bizman Beit Hamikdash, heseibah was required while eating the sandwich - the korekh - of korban pesach, matzah and maror since the korban pesach is harmonious with heseibah's theme of "zekher lecherut," a reminder of our freedom. He thus rules that bizman hazeh, as a zekher le'akhilat hapesach, the korekh of merely matzah and maror must also be eaten beheseibah.[26]
The Avudraham[27] rules that one must lean while eating karpas, while most rishonim forbid it. Interestingly, there is an opinion[28] that one must recline while reciting kiddush, haggadah, Hallel, and birkat hamazon. This is rejected, however, by most posekim.[29] Finally, Rambam[30] rules that it is praiseworthy to recline during the entire meal.
Yet, there are elements of the seder which are not clearly identified as Biblical or rabbinic, and are thus subject to dispute. For example, the nature of the obligation to recite Hallel on the seder night[31] is unclear.[32] Firstly, there is a disagreement as to whether generally the recitation of Hallel is Biblical[33] or rabbinic[34] in origin. Moreover, even if there is a distinctive Hallel min Hatorah on the seder night, it might be considered merely part of the Haggadah, i.e. a kiyyum in sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim. This idea is punctuated by both Rambam[35] and Sefer Ha'Chinukh[36] who categorize Hallel under the mitzvah of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim, effectively negating the concept of an independent mitzvah of Hallel.[37]
Charoset's ambiguous chararacter also inspires debate. The Mishnah Pesachim 114a rules that we dip maror into the charoset; however, tanna'im debate the nature of this obligation. According to the Chakhamim, charoset is not a mitzvah, whereas R' Elie'zer berabbi Tzadok rules that it is a mitzvah derabbanan.[38] The Chakhamim's opinion poses an obvious problem. If charoset is not a mitzvah, why are we obligated to dip maror into the charoset? The Gemara[39] explains that charoset was used as an antiseptic to neutralize the deadly kafah.[40] If so, the obligation to dip maror into charoset is not a mitzvah of leil haseder, but rather a din min hatorah of protecting one's life, "venishmartem me'od lenafshoteikhem."
Although there are numerous components to the seder, the seder can actually be reduced to two basic parts - acts of yetzi'at Mitzrayim and the story of yetzi'at Mitzrayim. Eating the korban pesach, matzah, and maror, drinking the arba' kosot, dipping and eating karpas, and reclining are all acts relating to yetzi'at Mitzrayim. We tell the story of yetzi'at Mitzrayim, on the other hand, by reading the Haggadah.[41] Both forms certainly serve as zekher lenes and pirsumei nisa as is required in many other mitzvot, like sitting in the Sukkah and lighting Chanukkah candles. Yet, on Pesach, ma'aseh and sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim have a more ambitious design - to transcend time. They enable us to achieve the overarching goal of the seder which is to look upon oneself as having come out of Egypt.[42]
While these components serve a collective purpose, they nonetheless have a particular inter-relationship. What precisely is the relationship between korban pesach, matzah, and maror? In theory, one can envision one of two extreme positions - either that akhilat korban pesach is the cornerstone of the seder or that pesach, matzah, and maror are each independent and sovereign mitzvot.
On the one hand, akhilat korban pesach might be the hub around which the seder revolves. A radical variation of this approach would establish the korban pesach as the sole mitzvah min hatorah, whereas matzah and maror would be merely subservient to it. Thus, although there would exist three ma'asei mitzvot - akhilat korban pesach, matzah, and maror - there would be only one kiyyum hamitzvah - akhilat korban hapesach.[43]
Moreover, as an exemplification of korban pesach's dominance, one would have to eat the matzah and maror in a sandwich[44] together with the korban pesach in order to fulfill the mitzvah.[45] However, paradoxically, if matzah and maror are entirely absorbed and integrated into the mitzvah of eating the korban pesach, they might possibly be considered as critical components of akhilat korban pesach, without which korban pesach could not exist. If so, precisely because of its subjugation of matzah and maror, akhilat korban pesach might be contingent upon akhilat matzah and maror.[46]
On the other hand, one might suggest that matzah and maror are each mitzvot 'aseh totally independent from that of akhilat korban pesach, and akhilat korban pesach, matzah, and maror, comprise three separate mitzvot 'aseh min hatorah.[47] This constellation would require one to specifically eat each of them separately, and not in a sandwich.[48] Moreover, in the event one could not bring the korban pesach, as when one is ritually impure or to far away from the Mikdash, one would still be obligated min hatorah to eat matzah and maror.[49] If so, even though we cannot bring the korban pesach bizman hazeh, we should still be obligated in akhilat matzah and maror min hatorah.
In reality, though, these two extremes only exist in a more tempered and milder form. The Mekhilta[50] explains that akhilat korban pesach does not depend on matzah and maror.[51] Thus, akhilat korban pesach did not completely integrate matzoh and maror into itself. Conversely, it is agreed in the Gemara[52] that bizman hazeh when there is no korban pesach, the mitzvah of maror is only miderabbanan. Thus, one cannot say that maror is entirely independent of akhilat korban pesach.[53] Nonetheless, two extremes clearly emerge - one mitzvat 'aseh of korban pesach or three separate mitzvot 'aseh of akhilat korban pesach, matzah, and maror.
Yet, it is possible to suggest a middle position - one that recognizes a measure of independence in matzah and maror, but which concomitantly acknowledges their fundamental bond to korban pesach and to each other. Representative of this approach would be to define eating matzah as both a fulfillment of korban pesach and of an independent mitzvat 'aseh of akhilat matzah.[54] Maror, though, is absorbed into the mitzvah of korban pesach, and has no independent kiyyum.[55] Nonetheless, maror does express a measure of independence from korban pesach in that maror does not have to be eaten with the korban pesach. Instead, maror must be eaten in a sandwich together with matzah,[56] le'ikkuva.[57] According to this approach, there are two mitzvot 'aseh - akhilat korban pesach and akhilat matzah.[58]
What emerges, then, is a spectrum of possibilities. On the one hand, perhaps eating the korban pesach, matzah, and maror, comprise only one mitzvat 'aseh - akhilat korban pesach. On the other hand, it is possible that each of these acts is a separate and independent positive commandment - three mitzvot 'aseh. Finally, one can envision a middle approach - one that integrates both extremes. According to this perspective, there are two mitzvot 'aseh - akhilat korban pesach and akhilat matzah, with maror and matzah simultaneously exhibiting a measure of independence from and dependence on akhilat korban pesach.
1. Sippur vs. Zekhirah
We have mentioned that sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is a din min hatorah. The Mishnah Pesachim[59] derives this from the pasuk[60]: "And you shall tell your son on that day, saying...." Even though generally there is a mitzvah every night of zekhirat yetzi'at Mitzrayim,[61] remembering the exodus from Egypt, on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan there is a distinctive mitzvah of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim, to tell the story of our exodus from Egypt. What precisely is the difference between zekhirat and sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim?[62]
Rav Chayyim Brisker zt"l explains[63] that sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim's peculiar character is expressed in four ways: A) It should ideally be articulated to another person derech she'eilah utshuvah, in a question and answer mode; B) it must begin with "genut," the portions of Jewish history reflecting our disgrace, and must conclude with "shevach," the triumphant parts of our history;[64] C) it must include the ta'amei hamitzvot of the night, i.e. pesach, matzah, and maror; and D) it must mention that today (the night of the fifteenth of Nisan) is the day we left Mitzrayim, just like we must mention on Shabbat that today is Shabbat.[65] Since the halakhah is "mitzvot tzerikhot kavvanah," mitzvot require intent, one must contemplate these four points during sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim.
Rav Chayyim suggests that mentioning "today is the day of yetzi'at Mitzrayim" is accomplished in Kiddush of leil Pesach when we say "zeman cherutenu," "the time of our freedom," just like the obligation to mention "Shabbat" is fulfilled in kiddush Friday night. If so, kiddush on the seder night is actually a kiyyum in sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim, and even according to those who understand that kiddush on Yom Tov is generally rabbinic, kiddush on leil Pesach is min hatorah. Moreover, since sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is only operative at night, it is logical that kiddush on leil Pesach is recited only when it is actually nighttime.[66] This is despite the fact that on Shabbat and other Yamim Tovim, kiddush may be recited even while it is yet daytime.
The Griz zt"l, Rav Yitzchak Zev Halevi Soloveitchik, understands[67] that sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim possesses yet an additional idiosyncratic feature. He asserts that learning the laws relevant to yetzi'at Mitzrayim and korban pesach is a component of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim.[68] This explains why the Haggadah, which is dedicated to sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim, states that the father should teach his wise son the laws of pesach. The fact that the Haggadah cites the debate between R' El'azar ben 'Azariah and Chakhamim regarding the mitzvah of zekhirat yetzi'at Mitzrayim, which seems unrelated to the act of sippur, is also eminently sensible. Rav Velvel, however, equivocates if it is possible that even learning the laws of chametz fulfills sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim, or if this din is limited to the laws of korban pesach.
The Rav zt"l, Maran Rabbi Joseph B. Halevi Soloveitchik, develops sippur's talmud Torah motif more fully.[69] He explains the rationale for this idea as follows. Mitzvat sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is actually a mitzvah of talmud Torah and mesorah. This idea is accentuated by a passage, located towards the beginning of the Haggadah, whose wording has a striking resemblance to that of birkat hatorah - "barukh Hamakom, barukh Hu, barukh shenatan Torah leamo Yisra'el etc." Since sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is accomplished through talmud Torah, we understand why the Haggadah commences akin to birkat hatorah.
Thus, not only must one tell the story of our exodus, but one must learn the story in the framework of Torah shebikhtav and Torah shebe'al peh. It follows naturally, then, that sippur also demands the learning of hilkhot pesach, as its laws are also part of the mesorah of yetzi'at Mitzrayim. Moreover, according to the Rav zt"l, our mesorah entails understanding the significance of Torah and mitzvot. This is accomplished by both knowing halakhah, and being fully prepared to fulfill all the mitzvot. If so, learning and teaching hilkhot pesach is indispensable to this night, since halakhah represents the essence of our mesorah.
The Rav zt"l[70] has pointed out five further distinctions between zekhirat and sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim. First, sippur consists of discussing yetzi'at Mitzrayim in detail, whereas mere reference to yetzi'at Mitzrayim suffices for zekhirah. Second, zekhirah does not require Hallel, and sippur does - "lefikhakh, anachnu chayyavim lehodot ulhallel."[71] Third, sippur means a total and all encompassing experience, similar to the way we relate to Shabbat,[72] which must be sustained the entire night. This idea is underscored by Rambam who rules[73] that one is obligated to appear as if he is leaving Egypt right now.
Yet a fourth distinction is based on the fact that Rambam[74] refers to sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim only in terms of the miracles which occured in Mitzrayim, but not those that occured at keri'at Yam Suf. In addition, Rambam's Haggadah does not include the reference to the mitzrim's punishment at keri'at Yam Suf, nor the paragraph "kama ma'alot tovot lamakom 'aleinu." Zekhirat yetzi'at Mitzrayim, however, must include kriat yam suf.[75] What is the reason for this difference? The Rav zt"l explains that according to Rav Chayyim Brisker, zekhirat yetzi'at Mitzrayim is actually a din in kabbalat 'ol malkhut shamayim, and accepting the yoke of heaven is exemplified by keri'at Yam Suf.[76] Sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim, though, aims to recall and relive the drama of yetzi'at Mitzrayim only, and thus there is no need to mention keri'at Yam Suf.[77]
A final distiction, based on Rambam,[78] is that sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim cannot be merely a restatement of what everyone already knows about our exodus. Since sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is characterized by talmud Torah, sippur entails being mechaddesh, innovating, in the understanding of yetzi'at Mitzrayim, broadening and deepening its essence yet further every year. Accordingly, when one is telling the story to a child, it is simple to fulfill the requirement of chiddush, since most every idea is new to a child. When there are no young children at the seder, however, and all present are talmidei chakhamim, this requirement demands deep thought and hard work from those attending in order that they may compose original thoughts on yetzi'at Mitzrayim. This is the meaning of "afilu ku'lanu chakhamim;" even the sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim of talmidei chakhamim must contain original ideas.
We queried above whether matzah and maror are merely considered part of the mitzvah of akhilat korban pesach, or if they are independent mitzvot. We must similarly discuss whether sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is part of mitzvat akhilat korban pesach, matzah, and maror, or if it is an independent mitzvat 'aseh. To phrase the question differently: Is sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim merely the narrative in our production of yetzi'at Mitzrayim - a part of chovat akhilah consigned to animating the primary mitzvot of akhilat korban pesach, matzah, and maror, or is it a chovat haggadah, sovereign and independent from the chovat akhilah?
On the one hand, the Torah links "talking" to korban pesach: "Va'amartem zevach pesach."[79] According to the Gemara,[80] matzah and maror are intimately connected to korban pesach, as the Torah states[81]: "al matzot umrorim yokheluhu," and thus it is logical that "amirah" must refer not only to korban pesach, but also to matzah and maror.[82] This idea is echoed in Gemara Pesachim[83] which understands that "ba'avur zeh", in the pasuk of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim,[84] refers to matzah and maror. Obviously, in the times of the Beit Hamikdash, "ba'avur zeh" of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim would refer to korban pesach as well.[85]
In this light, one may adduce that sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is merely a part of chovat akhilah, integeral to akhilat korban pesach, matzah, and maror,[86] and not an independent chovat haggadah. If so, it is possible to construct a position that bizman hazeh there are no de'orayta requirements on the seder night. To illustrate: If matzah and maror are dependent upon korban pesach, and sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is dependent upon all of them, it follows that not only are matzah and maror derabbanan bizman hazeh, but so is sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim.[87] Similarly, even bizman Hamikdash, there would be no mitzvah of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim after chatzot according to R' El'azar ben 'Azariah who rules there is no mitzvah of akhilat korban pesach or matzah after chatzot.
Another implication of this position is that sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim would be me'akkev, i.e. one would not be able to fulfill akhilat korban pesach, matzah, and maror without sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim.[88] Indeed, this is the import of Rabban Gamli'el's ruling: "Anyone who has not pronounced these three words on Pesach, has not fulfilled his obligation. And they are: Pesach, matzah, maror." In other words, one does not fulfill the mitzvah of akhilat korban pesach, matzah, and maror if he does not recite sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim in connection with each of them.
We have thus far discussed one extreme approach in sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim's relationship with korban pesach, matzah, and maror - complete integration and subordination. Yet, the simple reading of the pasuk[89]: "And you shall tell your son on that day, saying..." implies an independent chiyyuv of amirah, sovereign from pesach, matzah, and maror. Indeed, an entirely different conception of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim emerges from the Mekhilta[90] and Haggadah.[91] Instead of interpereting the link in the pesukim between "amirah" and korban pesach, matzah, and maror as one that conjoins them, the Mekhilta and Haggadah construe it, rather, as a method of scheduling the mitzvah of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim. Thus, according to the rendering of the Mekhilta and Haggadah, the mitzvah of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim does not begin from Rosh Chodesh, nor does it begin on the fourteenth of Nisan ("mibe'od yom"), but rather it is operative only "besha'ah sheyesh matzah umaror munachim lefanekha", i.e. only on the date when matzah and maror are set before you - the seder night, the fifteenth of Nisan.
According to this viewpoint, sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim does not serve as the underpinning of akhilat korban pesach, matzah and maror. Instead, it is a separate mitzvat 'aseh,[92] operative only on a prescribed date - from beginning of the seder night, the beginning of the fifteenth of Nisan, the same date on which there is a mitzvah of akhilat matzah and maror (and korban pesach bizman Beit Hamikdash). Indeed, this is precisely the interpretation Rambam offers in his Sefer Hamitzvot.[93] According to this approach, although mitzvat sippur is scheduled on the same date as the mitzvot akhilah, it is totally independent from them. Thus, mitzvat sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim should be operative the entire night of the fifteenth of Nisan, even according to R' El'azar ben 'Azariah who rules there is no mitzvah of akhilat pesach, matzah, and maror after chatzot.[94]
A variation of this extreme approach can be found in the Sefer Hachinukh[95] which also lists matzah and sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim as separate mitzvot. Yet, according to the Chinukh, in contrast with Rambam's position, mitzvat sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is not operative the entire night of the fifteenth of Nisan. Instead he writes: "And the Rabbis have already explained that this mitzvah of 'telling' is operative on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan, when one is eating matzah." Thus, according to R' El'azar ben 'Azariah - that there is no mitzvah of akhilat pesach, matzah, and maror after chatzot - the mitzvah of sippur should be operative only from tzet hakokhavim, nightfall, to chatzot, midnight, of the fifteenth of Nisan. The Chinukh thus understands that the Torah, in associating "amirah" with "akhilah" was scheduling mitzvat "amirah" not just for the same date as mitzvat "akhilah," but also for the same time period - from nightfall to chatzot.
The position that sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is an independent mitzvah,, however, must be reconciled with Rabban Gamli'el's ruling that anyone who has not pronounced pesach, matzah, and maror has not fulfilled his obligation. One viable solution would be to assert that the minimum definition of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is the verbalization of these three items - pesach, matzah, and maror; vekhol hamarbeh lesapper, harei zeh meshubbach. Sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim, then, is defined as the articulation of the individual themes inherent in pesach, matzah, and maror. Thus, Rabban Gamli'el's ruling means that one who fails to recite "pesach, matzah, and maror" does not fulfill sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim.[96] We have thus preserved sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim as a pure chovat haggadah.
Until now, we have presented two extreme approaches to the nature of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim; it is either merely a component of mitvat akhilat pesach, matzah, and maror, or it is a sovereign chovat haggadah. Yet, we cannot ignore the possiblity of a middle position - one that simultaneously recognizes the independence of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim from akhilat pesach, matzah, and maror, but which nonetheless links them together.
One illustration of this approach would be that both akhilat korban pesach, matzah, and maror, and sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim have dual roles. Akhilat pesach, matzah, and maror, on the one hand, are a chovat akhilah, as the Torah commands: "Ba'erev tokhelu matzot," "al matzot umrorim yokheluhu," and "veakhelu et habasar balaylah hazeh." On the other hand, akhilat pesach, matzah, and maror, are also an additonal kiyyum in sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim, serving as an illustration to the story of our exodus, as we learn: "Ba'avur zeh - lo amarti ela besha'ah sheyesh matzah umaror munachim lefanekha."
In order to fulfill akhilah's dimension of sippur, however, one must tell the story of our exodus from Egypt while eating pesach, matzah, and maror. If so, perhaps according to Rabban Gamliel - that one is not yotze if he does not say pesach, matzah, and maror - one does not fulfill akhilah's added dimension of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim, but he nonetheless fulfills the chovat akhilah.[97]
Concomitantly, sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim has a dual motif. On the one hand it is a chovat haggadah, but one the other hand it is an added kiyyumin the chovat akhilah, serving as narration for the acts of yetzi'at Mitzrayim. Thus, while akhilat korban pesach, matzah, and maror are efficacious without sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim, relating the story of our exodus significantly enhances their performance, and is required lekhatchilah.[98] Accordingly, perhaps Rabban Gamliel's ruling has a dual significance. He means that if one does not recite pesach, matzah, and maror, one does not fulfill the sippur dimension of akhilah, and one also does not fulfill the akhilah dimension of sippur.
This middle approach, however, still preserves the idea of sippur's total independence. It advocates that dibbur alone is sufficient to fulfill one's obligation of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim. Yet, one could adduce a more modified position which both recognizes sippur as a separate mitzvat 'aseh, but which nonetheless limits its independence. One variation of such a scheme would be that although sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is a separate mitzvat 'aseh, dibbur alone is meaningless. True haggadah needs some form of illustration, and thus sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim depends on the physical presence of korban pesach, matzah, and maror.
A closer reading of the above Mekhilta sharply underscores this idea. The relevant text states:
I would have thought (the mitzvah of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim) is mibbe'od yom (i.e. the fourteenth of Nissan), therefore it is taught "ba'avur zeh," (the mitzvah of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is) at the time when there is matzah and maror set before you on your table.
"Matzah and maror...on your table" implies that an actual display of matzah and maror (and korban pesach in the times of the Beit Hamikdash) is a critical component of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim.[99]
Moreover, this might actually be the intent of Rabban Gamliel when he ruled that in order to fulfill one's obligation, one must recite pesach, matzah, and maror. The obligation he was referring to is not pesach, matzah, and maror, but sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim. To be effective, the abstract story requires concrete symbols and audio-visual aids.[100] Tosafot[101] take a similar position: "One must state 'this pesach which we are eating', and since matzah and maror are connected to (korban) pesach, one must also say 'this matzah' and 'this maror.'" Obviously, one is pointing at each item during these statements, and thus pesach, matzah, and maror need to be physically present.[102]
Other variations of this middle position, which on the one hand acknowledges sippur as a separate mitzvat 'aseh, but which concomittantly limits its independence, are also possible. One such approach conditions sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim upon akhilat korban pesach, matzah, and maror. This view asserts that although they are all separate kiyyumei mitzvot, nonetheless, due to a gezerat hakatuv - ba'avur zeh - sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is only operative as long as there exists a chiyyuv to eat the korban pesach, matzah, and maror. According to this approach, the mitzvah of sippur does not depend on the presence of pesach, matzah, and maror, nor does it rely on the act of eating them. Sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is contingent, rather, upon the chiyyuv to eat pesach, matzah, and maror.
An implication of this position is that bizman hazeh, sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim might be only derabbanan.[103] For example, if mitzvat matzah and maror depend upon korban pesach, then since bizman hazeh there is no korban pesach, there is also no chiyyuv of matzah, and maror. Without the existence of a chiyyuv akhilat pesach, matzah, and maror bizman hazeh, sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim would be rendered inoperative. Similarly, there would be no chiyyuv sippur after chatzot according to R' El'azar ben 'Azariah who rules there is no mitzvah of akhilat pesach, matzah, and maror after chatzot.[104]
Thus, a spectrum of opinion emerges in the understanding of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim's relationship with korban pesach, matzah, and maror. On the one hand, sippur might be merely a component of akhilat pesach, matzah, and maror, and as such is not a mitzvat 'aseh unto itself. Alternatively, there might be a sovereign mitzvat 'aseh of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim, entirely independent of pesach, matzah, and maror. Finally, it is possible to suggest a middle approach - one which either overlaps the independent mitzvot of sippur and akhilah, or which actually links and binds the mitzvat 'aseh of sippur to pesach, matzah, and maror.
The seder night is indeed rich with symbolism, embroidered with elaborate rituals and customs. Yet, it is more than that. Kelal Yisra'el is drawn to the seder night because it is an opportunity to once again experience the ultimate yad Hashem and ahavat Hashem. By combining the drama of yetzi'at Mitzrayim with talmud Torah umesorah, the seder night transports us to oto halaylah, the night of our redemption, our ge'ulah. As the events of yetzi'at Mitzrayim unfold before our very eyes, we relive that awesome night and experience its miracles, and we emerge cognizant of, and thankful for, chasdei Hashem - barukh Hamakom barukh Hu.
In reliving the past, may we merit the realization of "hashatta 'avdei, lashanah haba'ah benei chorin" today.
* This article will focus primarily on mitvzat akhilat korban pesach, matzah, and maror, and sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim. Part II, which will discuss arba' kosot, heseibah, and other mitvzot derabbanan, will be forthcoming, be'ezrat Hashem, in the next Nisan edition of Alei Etzion.
[1] Shemot 13:8: "And you shall tell your son on that day, saying...." See Mishnah Pesachim 116b.
[2] One could fulfill the eating of the korban pesach only during the times of the Beit Hamikdash. Whether there is a possibility of bringing the korban pesach even today is the subject of another discussion. See Rabbi J. David Bleich shelita, Contemporary Halakhic Problems, vol. I, pp. 244-269, 1977.
[3] Shemot 12:8: "And they shall eat the meat in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread with bitter herbs they shall eat it," and Bemidbar 9:10-11: "...he shall keep the passover to God...they shall keep it, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs." This is also the understanding of the amora'im in Gemara Pesachim 120a.
[4] Pesachim 115a.
[5] The Rav zt"l understood that korekh did not actually mean a sandwich as we know it, but rather, one was wrapped, me'utaf, around the other. Accordingly, an olive's size of matzah was inside, and romaine lettuce, not horseradish, was wrapped around it. See Nefesh Harav, by mori verabbi Rav Hershel Schachter shelita, pp. 187-188.
[6] Indeed, this position is supported by the formulation of the Gemarot Pesachim 115a and Zevachim 9a. See Rambam, Laws of Chametz and Matzah 8:6-7. This also seems to be the understanding of the Rif, Ramban (Milchemet Hashem), and Ba'al Hama'or (Pesachim 25a in the pages of the Rif).
[7] This position is supported by the Talmud Yerushalmi's formulation in Massekhet Challah 1:1. See Rashi, Rashbam, Tosafot (Pesachim 115a), and Ra'avad, Laws of Chametz and Matzah 8:6-7.
[8] Shemot 12:8.
[9] Bemidbar 9:10-11.
[10] Rashbam and Me'iri Pesachim 115a.
[11] Tosafot Pesachim 115a, and Rambam Laws of Chametz and Matzah 8:6-8. Rambam's interpretation of this Gemara, however, seems problematic. According to Rambam, the Rabbis ruled that in the times of the Beit Hamikdash one could eat matzah and maror any which way, but nowadays one must eat matzah and maror specifically in a sandwich after eating them separately, zekher lemikdash. Why should there be a need to eat them in a sandwich nowadays if bizman hamikdash there was no need to eat them bekhorekh? (See Lechem Mishneh ibid.) The Rav zt"l (Mesorah Torah Journal, no. 3, Nisan 5750, pp. 24-25) suggests that the Rabbis actually agree that matzah and maror must be eaten together, as the Torah says: "al matzot umrorim yokheluhu," but not physically. The Rabbis understand that even eating them separately for the common purpose of korban pesach is considered eating them together, for there is at least a conceptual connection. However, since bizman hazeh we cannot eat matzah and maror for the common purpose of korban pesach, we must physically conjoin them to fulfill "al matzot umrorim yokheluhu," thus the need for korekh bizman hazeh. (See Tosafot Pesachim 115a, beginning Elah, why bizman hazeh we first eat matzah and maror separately, and then bekhorekh, and not vice versa.)
[12] Ramban, Milchemet Hashem, on Gemara Pesachim 115a.
[13] Ba'al Hama'or, Pesachim 115a.
[14] Pesachim 115a.
[15]
See Tosafot Pesachim 115a, beginning Ela. This arrangement, however, poses some
difficulties. For example, if the
Gemara is unsure how to rule, how can it mandate the recitation of a
berakhah over akhilat maror when according to Hillel eating
maror by itself might be meaningless? Moreover, why did the Gemara
decide to make a berakhah on matzah alone and maror alone,
but not on Hillel's korekh?
The resolution of these problems hinges, in part, on whether according to
Hillel bizman hazeh there is a mitzvah derabbanan of
korekh, or only a mitzvah derabbanan of akhilat
maror without any requirement of korekh. If Hillel's korekh meant that
bizman Beit Hamikdash one must eat only matzah and maror in a
sandwich, then bizman hazeh, there should still be some din of
korekh, if only miderabbanan, since we still have matzah
and maror. If, however,
korekh bizman hamikdash consisted of pesach, matzah,
and maror, then when one eats only matzah and maror
together bizman hazeh, it clearly cannot be defined as korekh, but
rather only as a zekher lemikdash.
(See Peri Megadim, Mishbetzot Zahav, siman 474, note
7, in the name of the Bach. One could certainly take issue, however,
with this line of reasoning.)
According to the latter position, we understand why bizman hazeh we make a berakhah on akhilat maror alone even according to Hillel, since it is a mitzvah derabbanan. It also is logical that no berakhah is recited on korekh, since it does not exist as a mitzvah bizman hazeh, but only as a zekher, a rememberance to the times of the Beit Hamikdash. If so, one may be mafsik between matzah and maror and the eating of korekh. Yet, Shulchan 'Arukh (Orach Chayyim 475:1) and the Be'ur Hagra (ibid. beginning bacharoset) imply that according to Hillel, even bizman hazeh one is only exempted by performing korekh. For a more elaborate discussion, see Haggadah Mibeit Levi (pp. 207-208) and Mesorah Torah Journal, no. 3, Nisan 5750, pp. 24-26, beshem the Rav zt"l.
[16] Orach Chayyim 475:10.
[17] See, however, Be'ur Halakhah, beginning ve'omer zekher lemikdash. See also Rashbam Pesachim 119b and Tosafot ibid. that the primary mitvzah of akhilat matzah is eating the afikoman at the end of the meal. If so, one should not be mafsik from the berakhah 'al akhilat matzah after hamotzi until after one eats the afikoman. Indeed, this was Rav Chayyim Brisker's minhag. See Nefesh Harav, by mori verabbi Rav Hershel Schachter shelita, p. 187.
[18] Gemara Pesachim 117b. See the Griz 'al Harambam, Laws of Chametz and Matzah 7:9, for a discussion on the nature of din arba' kosot.
[19] Mishnah Pesachim 116a. The Gemara ibid. explains that this was enacted in order to stimulate the children to ask questions.
[20] It is clear that heseibah is merely rabbinic, for although this is not stated in the Gemara, the Gemara does not cite any Biblical source to support the practice. Indeed, all rishonim consider "leaning" to be merely rabbinic. See Haggadah Shelemah, by Rav Menachem Kasher zt"l, pp. 74-76, for a summary of the items which require heseibah.
[21] Pesachim 108a.
[22] In fact, according to the Gemara ibid., one is required to recline only during two of the kosot. However, since the Gemara is unsure if this required for the first two kosot or the last two kosot, it rules that one must recline for all four kosot. See the Ran who writes that according to some posekim, even though we normally rule safek derabbanan lekula, here we are machmir since it does not require any extra effort. The Ran himself opts for an alternate explantion; if we were to be makil, we would not require heseibah for any of the kosot, and this would uproot mitvzat heseibah entirely.
[23] See Talmud Yerushalmi Pesachim 10:1. According to Tosafot Pesachim ibid. beginning mai, and rov rishonim, heseibah is required for both akhilat matzah and afikoman, whereas Rambam Laws of Chametz and Matzah 7:8 rules only akhilat matzah needs heseibah.
[24] Nonetheless, if one chooses, one may also eat maror while reclining. See Beit Yosef, Orach Chayyim siman 475, Peri Chadash ibid. note 1, Magen Avraham ibid. note 6, and Peri Megadim ibid.
[25] Bach, Orach Chayyim siman 475.
[26] Other posekim rule that bizman hazeh korekh must be eaten beheseibah, not as a zekher le'akhilat hapesach, but since matzah itself is a zekher lecherut. See the Manhig, cited in Tur Orach Chayyim siman 475. This is also the opinion of Beit Yosef, ibid. Lehalakhah, Shulchan 'Arukh, Orach Chayyim 475:1 rules that one must recline during akhilat korekh. The Rokeach (siman 283) rules, however, to refrain from heseibah during akhilat korekh. The Tur ibid. cites Rav Yechiel who is unsure if one must recline during korekh since maror does not require heseibah.
[27] Hilchot Pesach 80:2.
[28] Me'iri Pesachim 108a.
[29] See Birkei Yosef, Orach Chayyim siman 473, note 14.
[30] Laws of Chametz and Matzah 7:8. See also Semag, Me'iri, and Rama Orach Chayyim 472:7.
[31] See Massekhet Soferim 20:9, and Talmud Yerushalmi Berakhot 1:5. See, however, Gemara' Arakhin 10a.
[32] For a more complete discussion of Hallel on the seder night, see "Hallel on Pesach Night" by mori verabbi Rav Michael Rosensweig shelita, published in Yeshivat Har Etzion's Silver Anniversary Dinner Journal, 1993, pp. 71-87.
[33] See Behag mitvzat 'aseh 103, Yere'im siman 242.
[34] See Tosafot Megillah 21a, beginning la'atuyei. See also Rambam Sefer Hamitzvot, Shoresh 1, and Ramban's notes (ibid.), and Netziv's commentary on She'iltot Derav Acha'i Ga'on, 'Emek Berakhah, she'iltah 26:1.
[35] Mitvzat Aseh 157.
[36] Mitvzat Aseh 21.
[37] See Teshuvot Ri Migash, siman 44, and an opinion cited in Me'iri, Gemara Megillah 20a.
[38] The nature of this din derabbanan is an Amoraic dispute (Pesachim 117a). According to one opinion, we dip maror into charoset "zekher latapuach." Rashi explains that this refers to the fact that women would give birth under apple trees in Egypt in order to escape discovery by the Egyptians. Another opinion understands that we dip "zekher leteet", to remember the mud and clay we used to make bricks.
[39] Pesachim 115b-116a.
[40] Rishonim dispute the exact definition of kafah: Rabbenu Chananel (cited in Tosafot 115b) understands that it is a type of deadly worm, whereas Rashi and Rashbam assume that it is a form of poison.
[41] Whether Hallel is considered sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim or an act of yetzi'at Mitzrayim is the subject of another discussion.
[42] Mishnah Pesachim 116b: "In every generation it is a man's duty to look upon himself as having come out of Egypt." See Maharam Chalava explanation of "Va'anachnu hotzi m'ham," and the Neziv's comments, in his 'Emek Berakhah, on "Venomar lefanav shirah" which underscore this theme. Rambam's formulation (Laws of Chametz and Matzah 7:6), however, is slightly different: "It is a man's duty to appear as if he himself has just left now from Egypt." It could be that Rambam is merely emphasizing the experiential aspect of the seder, but it is entirely possible that he understands the mitvzah to be purely a didactic one, or at least a combination thereof. See Shi'urim Lezekher Abba Mari z"l, vol. II, p. 163. See "Hallel on Pesach Night" by mori verabbi Rav Michael Rosensweig shelita, ibid. p. 79.
[43]
One might base this on the Gemara
Pesachim 120a, where Rav Acha bar Ya'akov understands, based on the
pasuk in Bemidbar 9:10-11:
"On matzot and maror shall you eat it," that both
maror and matzah are dependent on korban pesach, and
when there is no korban pesach there is no mitvzah min
hatorah of maror or matzah. This is so even though Rav Acha also
rules that a tame or an 'arel, who cannot bring a korban
pesach, are obligated in achilat matzah and maror. It could be that Rav Acha understands
that there is only one mitzvat 'aseh - achilat korban pesach - as
long as one is able to bring the korban pesach. If one is unable to bring
the korban pesach bizman Beit Hamikdash, then there is a seperate
mitzvah of achilat matzah and maror since the
mitzvah of korban pesach still exists. However, when there is no korban
pesach, then there is no mitzvah of achilat matzah or
maror either.
A similar idea has been suggested, within the postion of Rava, by R' Yerucham Fishel Perlau in his commentary on the Sefer Hamitzvot of Rav Sa'adyah Ga'on (pp. 430-440). Rav Perlau presents an original insight which suggests a different understanding of Rambam Sefer Hamitzvot, mitvzat 'aseh 56, and Mishneh Torah (Laws of Chametz and Matzah 6:1). He explains that according to Rambam, even in the times of the Beit Hamikdash, akhilat korban pesach, matzah, and maror, comprised only one mitvzat 'aseh - akhilat korban pesach. He proves this from the fact that Rambam rules (Laws of Korban Pesach 8:2): "If one does not find matzah and maror for himself, he still fulfills his obligation by eating only the korban pesach". Rav Perlau asserts that this implies if one subsequently finds matzah and maror there is no longer any mitvzah to eat them. Thus, one must conclude that even matzah is only a kiyyum in akhilat korban pesach. If so, why did Rambam count akhilat matzah as a separate mitvzah (mitvzat 'aseh 56)? Rav Perlau answers that akhilat matzah is indeed a separate mitvzah, but only when it is impossible to eat the korban pesach, like when one is tame or lives too far away from the Beit Hamikdash, or when there is no Beit Hamikdash.
[44] Hillel's position according to the Yerushalmi's formulation (Challah 1:1). This is also the formulation of Rashi Zevachim 9a, and Rashi, Rashbam, and Me'iri Pesachim 115a.
[45] Tosafot in Pesachim 115a (beginning "Ela") understands that Hillel's korekh is an absolute requirement and is me'akkev.
[46] Although the Mekhilta Shemot 12:8 ultimately rejects conditioning korban pesach upon akhilat matzah and maror, it clearly considered this option. The approach that korban pesach completely dominates matzah and maror might have been the rationale for Mekhilta's initial consideration to construe korban pesach as contingent upon akhilat matzah and maror.
[47] This is the opinion of R' Sa'adyah Ga'on (Sefer Hamitzvot derav Sa'adyah Ga'on, mitvzot 'aseh 47,48,49) who lists korban pesach, matzah, and maror as three separate mitvzot 'aseh. This is also the position of R' Eli'ezer of Metz in his Sefer Yere'im, siman 90,91,94.
[48] The opinion of the Rabbis in Gemara Pesachim 115a, according to the understanding of Rashbam and Me'iri.
[49]
See R' Yerucham Fishel Perlau's commentary
on the Sefer Hamitzvot of Rav Sa'adyah Ga'on (pp. 430-440) which explains that this is the
opinion of the Tosefta at the end of the second perek of
Pesachim which states:
"Chazzeret, matzah, and the korban pesach are not
dependent one on the other." Rav
Perlau also cites a variant reading of the Mekhilta Shemot 12:8 which
explicity states that korban pesach, matzah, and
maror are separate mitvzot, independent of one another. He also cites the Yalkut and R'
Daniel Habavli (Sefer Ma'aseh Nissim) to this
effect.
According to Rav Perlau, this is also the opinion of Rashi and Tosafot Pesachim 120a. According to their reading of Gemara Pesachim 120a, bizman Beit Hamikdash, a person who could not bring the korban pesach due to ritual impurity was still obligated in matzah and maror. Rashi and Tosafot clearly understand, then, that not only matzah, but even maror, is a mitvzah independent of korban pesach. However, Me'iri Pesachim 28b negates the significance of the above Gemara's formulation, claiming that it is was just a manner of speaking to mention maror together with matzah, and in truth, only matzah is a mitvzah independent of korban pesach, not maror. See Avnei Nezer, siman 383, ot 6.
[50] Shemot 12:8.
[51] This is also the opinion of the rishonim. See Rambam (Sefer Hamitzvot, Mitvzat Aseh 56, and Laws of Korban Pesach 8:2).
[52] Pesachim 120a.
[53]
Rav Perlau ibid. endeavours to reconcile this ruling
with the opinion that maror is an independent mitvzat
'aseh. He explains that
although nowadays maror is only derabbanan, this is only due to a
gezerat hakatuv. The linkage
of maror to korban pesach, in the pasuk "on
matzot and maror shall you eat it", is purely technical, is
limited to a time when there is no korban pesach, and does not
reflect any fundamental relationship between maror and korban
pesach. (Akhilat matzah is min hatorah bizman
hazeh even though this pasuk also links it to korban
pesach, because the pasuk of "ba'erev tokhelu matzot"
gives matzah an entirely independent
dimension.)
Rav Perlau points out that according to Rashi and Tosafot Pesachim 120a, maror is indeed independent of korban pesach. This is so, since they rule that in the times of the Beit Hamikdash, one who could not bring the korban pesach, because he was tamei or lived far away, was nonetheless obligated min hatorah not only in matzah, but also maror. See Haggadah Mibeit Levi (pp. 205-206) that the Griz, Rav Yitzchak Ze'ev Halevi Soloveitchik, understood Rashi (Pesachim 39b) precisely this way.
[54] According to Rava (Pesachim 120a) eating matzah has a separate kiyyum hamitzvah based on the pasuk in Shemot 12:18: "In the evening you shall eat matzah," and this is also the ruling of Rambam in his Sefer Hamitzvot, mitvzat 'aseh 56, and in his Mishneh Torah (Laws of Chametz and Matzah 6:1).
[55] Rambam, Sefer Hamitzvot, mitvzat 'aseh 56. See Gemara Pesachim 120a where it is agreed that maror is dependent on korban pesach, and when there is no korban pesach, as there is none nowadays, the mitvzah of maror is only miderabbanan. Presumably, Rambam must also negate the significance Gemara Pesachim 120a's formulation which implies that one who is tame is obligated in maror despite the fact he cannot bring the korban pesach. See Haggadah Mibeit Levi (p. 206) that the Griz arrives at this same conclusion in the Rambam.
[56] Hillel's position, according to the formulation of the Gemarot Pesachim 115a and Zevachim 9a. See Rambam, Laws of Chametz and Matzah 8:6-7. This also seems to be the understanding of the Rif, Ramban (Milchemet Hashem), and Ba'al Hama'or (Pesachim 25a in the pages of the Rif).
[57] Hillel's position, Gemara Pesachim 115a, according to the view of the Rif, Ramban, and Ba'al Hama'or (Pesachim 25a in the pages of the Rif).
[58] An alternative formulation of this middle approach would be that korban pesach, matzah, and maror are three separate mitvzot 'aseh, but they are nonetheless dependent one on the other. This was tentatively suggested by Rav Daniel Habavli, cited in Rav Perlau's commentary on the Sefer Hamitzvot derav Sa'adyah Ga'on, and was ultimately rejected.
[59] Pesachim 116b.
[60] Shemot 13:8.
[61] Interestingly, even though zekhirat yetzi'atMitzrayim is a mitzvah min hatorah (see Rambam Laws of Keri'at Shema' 1:3, Gemara Berakhot 21a, and Rashi ibid. beginning Emet), Rambam does not count it in his minyan hamitzvot. See Minchat Chinukh, mitzvah 21. Rav Chayyim Brisker (Siach Hagrid, by Rav Yitzchak Lichtenstein shelita, pp. 35-37, 1995) has suggested two explanations for this oddity: 1) Rambam does not count mitzvot in his minyan hamitzvot if they will be batel le'atid lavo (Sefer Hamitzvot, shoresh 3), and R' El'azar ben 'Azariah (Berakhot 12b), in establishing zekhirat yetzi'atMitzrayim's obligation at night, discounts the limmud which proclaims zekhirah to be operative even bimot hamashiach; thus zekhirat yetzi'atMitzrayim cannot be counted in Rambam's minyan hamitzvot since it will be batel; or alternatively 2) Zekhirat yetzi'atMitzrayim is actually not a mitzvah unto itself, but is rather a kiyyum in kabbalat 'ol malkhut Shamayim (see main text below); thus it is in fact counted in Rambam's minyan hamitzvot - under mitzvat keri'at shema', since kabbalat 'ol malkhut Shamayim is part of mitzvat keri'at shema'.
[62] See Minchat Chinukh, mitzvah 21.
[63] See Haggadah Mibeit Levi, p.110, and vol. II, Kovetz Hosafot, p. 79-80 based on Rambam Laws of Chametz and Matzah 7:1-5.
[64] See Mesorah Torah Journal, vol. 5, Adar 5751, pp. 36-38 for a discussion on the significance of this format by the Rav zt"l.
[65] See Rambam Laws of Chametz and Matzah 7:1.
[66] See Shulchan 'Arukh, Orach Chayyim 472:1. See the Rav zt"l's development of this idea in Shi'urim Lezekher Abba Mari z"l, vol. II, pp. 154-156.
[67] Quoted in Haggadah Mibeit Levi, p. 110.
[68] The Griz proves this from a statement by Tosefta Pesachim 10:8 to this effect. See also the Tur Orach Chayyim, siman 481, in the name of Rabbenu Yonah.
[69] See Shi'urim Lezekher Abba Mari z"l, vol. II, pp. 156-163.
[70] Shi'urim Lezekher Abba Mari z"l, vol. II, p. 153-154, and Mesorah Torah Journal, vol. 3, Nisan 5750, pp. 27-28, and ibid. vol. 5, Adar 5751, p. 38.
[71] Mishnah Pesachim 116b.
[72] See Ramban al hatorah, Shemot 20:8.
[73] Laws of Chametz and Matzah 7:6.
[74] Laws of Chametz and Matzah 7:1-5.
[75] Gemara Berakhot 12a.
[76] "Az Hashem yimlokh...vaya'aminu bashem..." See also Magen Avraham, Orach Chayyim, siman 67.
[77] Mesorah Torah Journal, vol. 3, Nisan 5750, pp. 27-28. See however Shi'urim Lezekher Abba Mari z"l, vol. II, pp. 159-160, where the Rav zt"l suggests that according to Rambam, sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim entails not only the miracles which occurred in Egypt, but even those that transpired afterwards until mattan Torah.
[78] Laws of Chametz and Matzah 7:1-2.
[79] Shemot 12:27.
[80] Pesachim 120a.
[81] Bemidbar 9:10-11.
[82] Indeed, Tosafot Pesachim 116a (beginning va'amartem) make this point explicitly.
[83] Pesachim 116b.
[84] Shemot 13:8: "And you shall tell your son on that day, saying (ba'avur zeh) this is done because of that which God did to me when I came out of Mitzrayim."
[85] See the Shibbalei Halekket (Laws of Pesach) which states that bizman Beit Hamikdash, the Haggadah read: "At the time when pesach, matzah, and maror are set before you." The Beit Halevi al hatorah (parashat Bo) actually renders the derashah: "At the time when pesach, matzah, and maror are set before you."
[86] This seems to be the understanding of Behag and R' Sa'adyah Ga'on since they do not count sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim in their Sefer Hamitzvot. Assumedly, they consider it part of akhilat korban pesach, matzah, and maror.
[87] See Shi'urim Lezekher Abba Mari z"l, vol. II, p. 160, where the Rav zt"l develops a similar approach assuming that sippur is dependent upon the chiyyuv akhilat pesach, matzah, and maror, but not that it is an integeral part of their akhilah. See below. Lehalakhah, matzah is min hatorah bizman hazeh, and thus sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim would be required min hatorah in connection with matzah, and only miderabbanan in connection with maror.
[88] Many achronim understand that this is the ruling of Tosafot Pesachim 116a (beginning va'amartem) - see Maharsha ibid., Tzelach ibid., 'Aruch Lener (Sukkah 28a). This also seems to be the ruling of Ran (Sukkah 28a) who states that in the event one does not recite sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim: "One does not fulfill the obligations," in the plural, implying the obligations of akhilat korban pesach, matzah, and maror. Moreover, this ruling was expressly stated by the Orchot Chayyim (Hilkhot Leil Hapesach, p. 181) and Kol Bo (Commentary on Haggadah, p. 15): "Even though one has eaten the korban pesach, matzah, and maror, one does not fulfill his obligation without the recitation, since the Torah requires recitation and telling".
[89] Shemot 13:8.
[90] Mekhilta, Parashat Bo, parasha 17.
[91] See Haggadah shel Pesach, beginning "veshe'eino yodea' lish'ol".
[92] See Rambam's Sefer Hamitzvot, mitvzat 'aseh 157, and Sefer Hachinukh, mitvzah 21, which count sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim as a separate mitvzah. If sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is a chovat haggadah, as opposed to a chovat akhilah, then it is likely that not only must it verbalized in a particular framework, i.e. "she'elah uteshuvah," a question and answer discourse, but the very phraseology and formulation must take a certain shape. Thus, even if a child asks the four questios of the "Ma nishtanah", the adults should repeat the "Ma nishtanah" themselves, as the question is also part of the form of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim. Indeed, Rambam rules this way (Laws of Chametz and Matzah 8:2), in line with his position above that sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is a chovat haggadah (Rav Chayyim Brisker, quoted in Haggadah m'Beit Levi, vol. II, p. 80). However, many, such as the Rokeach, Shibbolei Haleket, Maharil, and Rama (Orach Chayyim 473:6), rule that if a child already pronounced the "Ma nishtanah," the adults simply respond to the questions without repeating the "Ma nishtanah."
[93] Mitvzat 'aseh 157. The Netziv (Birkat Netziv, Mekhilta, Parashat Bo, parashah 17) understands the Mekhilta in a similar vein: "Zeman shel akhilat matzah gorem," i.e. "It is the time of akhilat matzah which is decisive."
[94] See Pesachim 120b, which cites a Tannaitic dispute between R' El'azar ben 'Azariah and R' Akiva as to the sof zeman of mitzvat pesach and matzah. R' El'azar rules there is no mitzvah after midnight, whereas R' 'Akiva rules the mitzvah exists until daybreak, 'ammud hashachar. Rif and Rambam (Korban Pesach 8:14) understand that the halakhah is accordance with R' 'Akiva, but Tosafot (Megillah 21a, beginning La'atuyei) rules like R' El'azar. Ran, Rosh, and Tur (siman 477:1), are unsure as to who the halakhah is like, and thus rule that we should be machmir in accordance with the view of R' El'azar, being careful to eat the matzah before midnight.
[95] Mitvzah 21.
[96] This interpretation is offered by Machzor Vitri (beginning Rabban Gamli'el), Rashbatz (Haggadah, p. 45), Mabit (Kiryat Sefer, Laws of Chametz and Matzah, chapter 7), and Rambam (ibid. 7:5).
[97] This might be the interpretation of Tosafot Pesachim 115b, beginning Matkif; see Shi'urim Lezekher Abba Mari z"l, vol. II, pp. 161-163.
[98] Ramban (Milchemet Hashem, Berakhot 2b in the pages of the Rif).
[99] See Haggadah shel Pesach m'Beit Levi (pp. 124-125) which asserts, based on the Mekhilta, that this is indeed the proper understanding of mitvzat sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim. It also quotes in the name of the Griz, Rav Yitzchak Ze'ev Halevi Soloveitchik, that this is the position of the Ramban (Sefer Hamitzvot in the ho'safot lemitzvot 'aseh). The Brisker Haggadah further cites Gemara Pesachim 36a: "Why (is matzah called) 'lechem 'oni'? Because it is lechem she'onin 'alav harbeh, i.e. much recitation is performed on it," as proof that sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is operative only in the physical presence of matzah and maror. This is also why we uncover the matzot during the Haggadah. Moreover, asserts the Haggadah m'Beit Levi, we now understand the intent of an intriguing Tosefta (end of Massekhet Pesachim). The Tosefta states: "It happened that Rabban Gamliel and the Elders were reclining...and they were involved in the laws of Pesach all night...when the sun rose, they removed them from before them." What was removed from before Rabban Gamliel and the Elders? Obviously, since the mitvzah of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim can only be performed in the physical presence of matzah and maror, and they were involved in that mitvzah, the table had to be set before them with matzah and maror. Once the sun rose and the time for the mitvzah of sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim had passed, there was no need for the presence of matzah and maror, and they were removed.
[100] See "The Nine Aspects of the Haggadah" by the Rav zt"l, Yeshiva University Haggadah, p. 9, 1985.
[101] Pesachim 116a, (beginning va'amartem).
[102] Apriori, it might be suggested that the act of eating pesach, matzah, and maror is a critical component of mitvzat sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim, le'ikkuva. According to this approach, verbalization of our exodus using audio-visual aids does not suffice; to effectively communicate yetzi'atMitzrayim one must also engage in a performance. However, there does not seem to be any source which supports this position.
[103] See Shi'urim Lezekher Abba Mari z"l, vol. II, p. 160. The Rav zt"l points out that this position is that of some rishonim within the view of Rav Acha bar Ya'akov.
[104] This seems to be contradicted by the ma'aseh berabbi Eli'ezer, verabbi Yehoshua', verabbi Ela'zar ben 'Azariah...shehayu mesubbin bivnei Verak, since they were telling the story of yetzi'atMitzrayim all night until the morning. If so, it would seem that even R' Ela'zar ben 'Azariah agrees that sippur does not depend on akhilat pesach, matzah, and maror? See Shi'urim lezekher Abba Mari z"l, vol. II, p. 161, for the resolution of this problem.