Pesachim X

2:
Not only is it important to eat the paschal lamb at the Seder service but it is important to enjoy eating
it. One way to ensure this is to make certain that we are reasonably hungry to eat by the time we get to
the Seder meal. Our mishnah ensures this by prohibiting the consumption of food during the afternoon of
Nisan 14th. When we studied the first mishnah of chapter 5 we surveyed the time schedule associated with
Minĥah. Here are the main points that we raised then:

4:
Nowadays, of course, we do not eat roast lamb at all at the Seder service. When we studied the 4th
mishnah of chapter 4 I wrote:

6:
Our mishnah makes two other stipulations: the Seder meal must be eaten reclining and it must be
accompanied by four cups of wine. The following is noted in the Talmud of Eretz-
Israel [Pesaĥim 68b]:

Yiftah Shapir writes:

I wonder… as you say Rambam's commentary seem to be quite straightforward and the example he gives
opens one's eyes – yet the Rabbi Yom Tov Lippman Heller says in the Tosfot Yom Tov, on 've-Yafsid
ha-motar' – 'the words of Rambam in his commentary are not clear to me'… Ha-Omnam??? how come?

I respond:

The difficulty experienced by Tosfot YomTov is 'a puzzlement'. Possibly enlightenment may be
found in a comment made by another commentator. Rambam, in his explanation, did not use the specific
term 'paschal lamb' but the generic term 'sacrifice'. Since Rambam is always extremely careful about his
choice of words and almost nothing is 'by chance', perhaps he intended other offerings to be included in
his comment. Rabbi Moshe Zacuto [Amsterdam, Venice, Mantua, 17th century CE] in his commentary 'Kol ha-
Tor' writes:

You might have misunderstood the mishnah as intending to convey that if the two sacrifices that got mixed
up were, for instance, a guilt-offering or a sin-offering which are eaten by priests that they should
have to sustain the financial loss. This is why the mishnah states explicitly that this is not the case.

The first part of 9:9 reads (in part): 'If theirs was the first to be slaughtered they must eat
from theirs and he must eat of his. If it is not possible to determine which was slaughtered first, or if
they were slaughtered simultaneously, he must eat from his own, they may not share his, and theirs must
be incinerated, but they are excused the need to observe the Alternative Passover.'

The second part of that same mishnah reads (in part): 'if his was the first to be slaughtered or
they were both slaughtered simultaneously, they must eat from theirs, he may not share theirs and his
must be incinerated.'

In my explanation I wrote: 'The second element in our mishnah is the same as the first, except that
this time it is Re'uven who tries to hedge his bets. In such an event the situation is the same as
previously, but with the roles reversed.'

Now Nehama Barbiru writes:

The two cases are not exactly the same in their solution (as suggested in the explanation). There is a
difference in the case that the second party's lamb was slaughtered first. In part 1 of the Mishna Reuben
eats his own but in the second part he is left with no lamb. At the same time, the solution for
a simultaneous slaughter is the same in both cases. Why the difference?

I respond:

It is the halakhic reasoning which is parallel in both parts. In the first part of the mishnah it is
'the rest of the group' who create the anomalous situation, whereas in the second part it is Re'uven who
does so. In the first part, if Re'uven's lamb was the first to be slaughtered he is considered as having
carried out the mission that they required of him and therefore they must eat together with him; if
theirs was the first to be slaughtered it must be assumed that they have seceded from Re'uven's lamb, so
they eat theirs and he eats his.

In the second part it is Re'uven who tells them to act if he is late. If theirs was the first to be
slaughtered they have carried out the mission that he required of them and so he must eat with them. If
his was the first to be slaughtered it must be assumed that he has seceded from their lamb so each must
eat of its own.

In both cases the 'seceding' party loses it's lamb if it is not possible to determine which one was the
first to be slaughtered.

The mishnah in 9:5 includes the phrase 'Passovers ever since'. Ed Frankel writes:

This is reminiscent of a fact we all know, but so often ignore. While the holiday has many names to it,
the one most often used is Pesaĥ, which for all intents is mainly an innacuracy if speaking from a
biblial perspective. The liturgical texts primarily refer to it as the Holiday of the Matzot, and even at
our sedarim it is by that name that we sanctify the festival. Perhaps, the custom of calling the holiday
Pesaĥ is more ancient than may have otherwise been believed, and so accepted already in the time of the
Mishna that this double meaning is already contained in the text.

2:
Clearly the requirement that every Jew drink four cups of wine with his meal of roast lamb, matzah and
maror, is part of the effort of halakhah to ensure that the passover meal is eaten 'in freedom', as we
explained in connection with mishnah 1. Technically speaking, the first cup is designated for 'Kiddush',
the sanctification of the day over wine; the second is reserved for the recitation of the 'Haggadah'
(which is also a requirement of the Torah); the third cup is the cup over which grace is recited after
the meal; and the fourth cup is that which accompanies and concludes the recitation of Hallel. This
chapter will elaborate on each of these as it progresses.

3:
Even though 'four cups' may have started off as 'many cups' to indicate that the celebrant is a free
person who can take his repast 'just like the Romans do', the Romans who were masters of the world – even
so an attempt was made to link the number four to a biblical origin. When, at the site of the burning
bush in the desert, God appoints Moses to the task of getting the Israelites out of Egyptian slavery, He
tells Moses to assure the Israelites of their ultimate salvation:

4:
The Seder service, just like the celebratory meals of Shabbat and the other festivals, begins with
Kiddush. When we studied the first mishnah of the eighth chapter of tractate Berakhot we first learned
of the 'machloket' [difference of halakhic opinion] between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai in
this regard. We noted at that time:

2:
The first sentence of our present mishnah is problematic and I have tried to indicate the problem in the
translation. Several attempts have been made to reconstruct the text. Rambam, in his commentary on our
present mishnah, reads: 'They set before him vegetables and he eats the lettuce before he
reaches…' The Tosafists [Pesaĥim 114a] read: 'They set before him a
table…' and they explain that the low tables were only set before the diners after Kiddush.

3:
It seems that the intention of our mishnah is to say that even before the main part of the celebratory
meal begins the 'waiters' would set before the diners an hors d'oevre of vegetables which
they would eat at this early stage. Rambam is a great pains to explain that at this stage 'lettuce' is
just an example and that, in fact, any vegetable over which the berakhah for vegetables may be recited is
acceptable. Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro adds to what Rambam says the explanation that any vegetable may
be used at this stage, and the citation of lettuce is merely to indicate that a poor person who does not
have the means to provide several kinds of vegetable to go with his meal may use as his hors
d'oevre the same lettuce that will also serve later on as the maror.

4:
Rambam explains that the reason why such a gross deviation from custom is made – to introduce the
hors d'oevre long before the main part of the meal – is in order to peek the curiosity of
the children present so that they will ask about this, thus prompting the 'haggadah', the
'telling' – as we shall see in the next mishnah.

Opening the proverbial can of worms. Is this not time bound?

I respond:

At first glance Mike's query seems perfectly justified: we recently had occasion to mention the general
rule that 'all positive, time-specific mitzvot are incumbent upon men whereas women are excused;
all positive mitzvot that are not time-specific are incumbent upon both men and women; all negative
commandments, be they time-specific or not, are incumbent upon both men and women'. And, as Mike
suggests, can there be anything more 'time-specific' than the requirement that the Seder service be
conducted each year on the night of Nisan 15th before midnight?

However, when we discussed this rule in connection with 8:1, I also wrote:

6:
Be that as it may, it is now accepted that this vegetable is dipped. But into what? Our mishnah says
that it is dipped into the lettuce (maror) which does not make much sense. Rambam seems to be confusing
the Hebrew terms 'chazeret' (lettuce, maror) with 'charoset', but this is simply because he is following
the format used in the Gemara. It seems that the custom eventually stabilized into a format whereby the
vegetable was dipped into salt water. It was perhaps this that prompted Rabbi Oshaya in the Gemara
[Pesaĥim 115a-b] to note that any food that is dipped into a liquid requires the hands to
be washed beforehand. The Tur [Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473] says that this vegetable is brought
before the celebrant who distributes it to all the other participants and 'he washes his hands because
anything that is dipped requires the hands to be washed'. Perhaps the pronoun here was misunderstood,
but it became the custom that only the celebrant washes his hands before the 'karpas' is ate.

7:
The rest of our mishnah refers to the main part of the meal. The menu consists of matzah, maror,
ĥaroset and two other dishes. In our study of 2:6 we exhaustively discussed the various vegetables
which can serve as maror, with a distinct preference being shown for lettuce. When we studied 2:8 we
mentioned ĥaroset. The Tur [Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473] gives a recipe for ĥaroset:

8:
In our mishnah Rabbi Eli'ezer bar-Zadok challenges the view of Tanna Kamma and holds that the ĥaroset is
an essential mitzvah of the evening, on a par with matzah and maror etc, and that it therefore requires
its own blessing. Halakhah follows Tanna Kamma, and there is no special berakhah that accompanies the
ĥaroset.

9:
Our mishnah says that in addition to the elements already mentioned 'two dishes' are brought to the table.
It is now customary that the two dishes are a shankbone and an egg, the shankbone representing the paschal
lamb and the egg representing the chagigah [celebratory sacrifice] which often accompanied the celebrants
in the Bet Mikdash (we discussed this in 6:3-4). However, this was not always the case: in the Gemara
[Pesaĥim 114b] Rav Huna recommends beetroot and rice. We should note here two things:
firstly, that since Rav Huna recommends beetroot those who refrain from having meat on their table can
use a beet to 'represent' the paschal lamb; and secondly, that Rav Huna does not hesitate to recommend
that rice be served at the Seder table. (We exhaustively discussed the matter of legumes – kitniyyot –
when we studied 2:5.)

10:
From a reading of our mishnah it seems that in Temple times the Seder meal consisted of matzah, maror,
ĥaroset, beetroot, rice (or something similar) – and, of course, roast lamb!

2:
The section called 'maggid' as also a mitzvah of the Torah. On four separate occasions the Torah
instructs us to relate the story of the Exodus to our children and to explain to the the details of the
Seder ceremony:

To be continued.

Is there any way to express this in terms of equivalents of items used in Mishnaic times, say the price
of a lamb, a liter of wine, etc.? All I could find is that each dinar (zuz) is the equivalent of 96 barley
grains צ which seems like a very small amount.

I respond:

It would seem that the daily income of a journeyman (in our terms an employee of 'middle class' standards)
was between three and four dinars [Bava Metzi'a 76a]. This would yield an annual income of
between 1200 and 1500 dinars.

As an afterthought Ze'ev added:

It occurred to me in the middle of the night that, of course, that we know the price of a lamb צ from the
Chad Gadya.

And I respond to that:

I am sorry that you had to lose sleep over this. Perhaps it was because you were counting sheep!

I don't know how much it would be advisable to base such a calculation on a medieval children's ditty.
If that price of two dinars for one kid reflects any kind of reality then one could calculate the
approximate value today of 7% a comparable weekly wage today.

In a response to a query by Mike Mantel I wrote: 'Recently we had occasion to note that "even
women and servants at the Seder service must behave as free Roman males did at their dinner
parties".

Art Werschultz writes:

I recall learning that since women are bound by the negative commandments of ĥametz, they are also bound
by the positive commandment of eating the korban pesach. Unfortunately, I don't have the source handy here.

I respond:

Benjamin Fleischer provides you with the information, unasked:

See BT Men 42ab where is it 'clarified' that women are obligated in positive-time-bound-commandments that
include negatives like the 'zachor and shamor = remember and guard' of shabbat.

Art Werschultz continues:

However, note that Rambam doesn't specifically say that women recline. Is that contained in the 'etc.'?
Once again, I recall learning that 'an important woman reclines', the followup being 'and all our women
are important'. Again, I don't have the source handy; it might be the Shulchan Aruch Hilchot Pesaĥ, with
the retort being the ReMA, but I can't say for sure.

I respond:

See Rambam, Ĥametz u-Matzah 7:8. On Oraĥ Ĥayyim 472:4 the Rema quotes the Mordechai as quoting Rabbenu
Yerucham as saying that 'all our womenfolk are considered to be important' and need to recline at the
Seder. Now, isn't that just something for a statement originally made in medieval Europe some 800 years ago!

4:
Questions can be raised concerning the meaning of each of the questions discerned in our mishnah. When
the child notes that 'on all other nights we eat ĥametz or matzah', it could also be translated as 'on
all other nights we eat ĥametz with matzah', meaning that on all other occasions ĥametz can be present
on the table as well as matzah, but not tonight. (It seems that matzah was eaten quite regularly
throughout the year, as well as bread that was ĥametz.)

5:
The question about the vegetables is problematic – and, as we have already noted, it is missing in many
manuscripts. Vegetables were regularly served as an hors d'oevre, as we noted in connection with
the previous mishnah, usually dipped in a piquant sauce of some kind. The difference was, as noted at
that stage, that 'on this night' the usual hors d'oevre was separated from the main meal by the
long intrusion of the 'haggadah', the 'telling'. Furthermore, the question would only make sense if the
alternative were 'but on this night we eat maror only'; but that could not be the formulation of the
question since it simply is not true: maror is not a vegetable eaten at the Seder table to the exclusion
of all others.

6:
The question about the meat was obviously appropriate only when the Bet Mikdash was in existence, since,
as we noted when we studied 4:4, after that the eating of roast meat at the Seder table was scrupulously
avoided, so as not to raise the suspicion of eating 'sacred' meat outside the now non-existent Temple.
Thus this question is very old. It means that the child has noted that great care has been taken to
fulfill the command of the Torah that the meat of the lamb may not be 'in any way boiled in water, but
roasted by fire' [Exodus 12:2-9]. When the question became obsolete it was replaced – universally
it seems – with the question about table habits: 'on all other nights we may dine either sitting [on
upright chairs] or reclining [on couches], but tonight only reclining'.

To be continued.

I am curious about the wine drinking and the blessing there of. Do we have any evidence of a 'first time'
or a development of this in the halakha? When the temple was standing festival days were not sanctified
with a berakha over a cup of wine, right? Were there wine libations in the temple in connection with the
sacrifices? Is it just the influence of wine drinking Romans that the rabbis decide to sanctify with a
berakha over wine?

I respond:

I do not know why Naomi thinks that 'when the temple was standing festival days were not sanctified with
a berakha over a cup of wine'. While I cannot recall any biblical reference, the custom of reciting
Kiddush over wine is mentioned in a very early halakhic midrash, the Mekhilta [Bachodesh 7]. In
reference to the biblical injunction in the Ten Commandments 'Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it'
[Exodus 12:8] the midrash comments:

Yes, there certainly were libations of wine offered with many sacrifices in the Bet Mikdash, including
the twice-daily 'Tamid'.

To be continued.

It is difficult to generalize on the position of women in the Greek/Roman world. Women in the Western
Roman world were in a much better position then in the Greek/Hellenistic east and were not confined
totally to the inner space of the house. In Rome, it was not uncommon for women to go out with their men
and eat on couches, in the same room as their husbands. In the classical Greek world, that would be
unthinkable. Women in Athens were held in less esteem than slaves. However, that is around the same time
as the Babylonian exile, seven hundred years before the publication of the Mishnah. Dinner was indeed
served on small, round tables that were brought in with the food and then set before the diners. The
tables were not set before the dinner started. Wine was always served, mixed with water, never pure. A
main task of the waiter was to mix the wine. I am sorry, knowing you hold Rambam in high esteem, that
his remark on the reason why the hors d'oeuvre is served before the meal, tells us more about diners in
Egypt in the middle ages than about the Mishnah. As is still the case now in Italy, salads in the Roman
world were eaten as a first course. However, it is interesting to note that in the eastern Roman world,
vegetable salads were more in vogue, while the western Roman world preferred something with eggs as a
first course. I learned from my parents to serve an egg, dipped in salt water, just before the meal
during the seder. I know the eastern Ashkenazi world holds remnants of Italic Judaism and wonder if this
is one too.

I respond:

I have also seen other explanations for the (not universal) custom of starting the meal with an egg in
salt-water, but the one offered by Albert certainly seems to have the ring of reason to it. However, let
us note that the requirement that it be a vegetable that be dipped as 'karpas' was never uprooted,
which meant that the 'egg in salt-water' could not and did not replace the original vegetable hors
d'oeuvre.

In connection with mishnah 3 I wrote: The Tur [Oraĥ Ĥayyim 473] says that this vegetable is
brought before the celebrant who distributes it to all the other participants and 'he washes his hands
because anything that is dipped requires the hands to be washed'. Perhaps the pronoun here was
misunderstood, but it became the custom that only the celebrant washes his hands before the 'karpas'
is ate.

Josh Greenfield writes:

I was intrigued to see this source, because I have noticed this custom before, although it seemed more
correct to have all participants wash their hands before dipping the vegetable. Nonetheless, would a
straight reading of the Tur not seem to indicate that only the celebrant himself washes washes his hands,
since he is the only one dipping the vegetable? The practice I have seen is to distribute the vegetable,
and pass around a bowl of salt water for dipping, but I think the Tur is describing a situation where the
dipping is done by one person and then distributed to all present.

I respond:

This is ingenious, but ultimately no less problematic, since in the Gemara [Pesaĥim 115a-b]the
requirement to wash the hands before eating 'anything that is dipped' applies to the eater and not just
to the server.

9:
The fact that the Seder dish is removed after 'karpas' has a very interesting repercussion on the
questions that the child is expected to ask. Rashi's Prayer Book indicates that 'Mah Nishtanah'
is, in fact, offered by our present mishnah as an example of questions that might be
asked for the child 'who doesn't know how to ask'. This is reinforced by an account given in the Gemara
[Pesaĥim 115b]:

10:
Another example of a starter for the 'haggadah' other than the 'Mah Nishtanah' is recounted
in the Gemara [Pesaĥim 116a]:

12:
The second reaction mentioned by our mishnah is the midrashic development of Deuteronomy 26:5-8 –

2:
Furthermore, even the mishnah as given above could easily be subdivided into three parts. The first part
is the three items that must be mentioned, the second part the requisite mindset, and the third part the
duty of gratitude – which serves as a smooth passage and introduction to the recitation of Hallel. This
mishnah – with cosmetic changes – has been incorporated wholesale into the traditional Haggadah as we
know it today.

3:

The first part of our mishnah returns us back to the mitzvah that is being performed at this stage in the
proceedings. In our very first shiur on this tractate I wrote:

4:
In our present mishnah Rabban Gamli'el states that this is not sufficient for the proper fulfillment of
the duty of 'telling your son'. The response to the questions suggested by both Rav and Shemu'el (both
of which suggestions were incorporated into our Haggadah, as we have mentioned) appeal to the more
intellectual aspect of the telling: a historical survey which explains why we are celebrating. The
requirement to embellish the telling of the story as much as possible provokes the midrashic exposition
that is also included in our Haggadah today. However, now Rabban Gamli'el adds that the duty of 'telling
your son' requires an explanation not only of why we are celebrating but also of
how we are celebrating: an explanation of the three main items in the meal that will
shortly be eaten – the roast lamb (which is still rotating on its spit before the child's eyes), the
Matzah and the Maror.

Your comment that Had Gadyah is "…a medieval children's ditty" raises a number of questions
in my mind. What are the 'zuzei' to which reference is being made? The word, when read backwards, is
'yeizuz' … which is a very provocative coincidence as far as names go. The other observation which can
be made is that the survivors of Had Gadyah are the father, the son (????), and HaKadosh Baruch Hu. That
too indicates a profound message that children would not appreciate. Would it therefore be reasonable to
speculate that Had Gadyah is far deeper than '…a medieval children's ditty', and may have been the
coded result of some very difficult medieval Jewish-Christian contacts?

I respond:

I think that Rémy is trying to read into this 'children's ditty' something that quite simply is not
there. Why should our tradition have incorporated into our celebration a song that describes how 'Father
bought one kid for two Jesuses'? – whatever that might mean. Apart from the fact that the incidence of a
father may presume the existence of a son, where is the son in this song? Also, is it conceivable that
any believing Jew – and certainly in the middle ages! – would have seen in the appellation 'ha-Kadosh
Barukh Hu' any being but Israel's God? And how would the cat, dog, stick, fire, water etc connect with
'Father, Son and Holy Ghost' even if they were hidden there in the song?

6:
The great sage Hillel, who lived around the turn of the era, was the founder of a dynasty whose scions
provided the presidents of the Sanhedrin for several centuries. Hillel must have died around the year 20
CE, maybe a little earlier. His son, Gamli'el, who succeeded him was the first to be accorded the
honorific 'Rabban' (Our Master) instead of the general 'Rabbi' (My Master). He is
usually referred to by later scholarship as 'Rabban Gamli'el the Elder' so as to distinguish him from his
grandson of the same name. Rabban Gamli'el was succeeded by his son, Shim'on (and unfortunately there is
no easy way to distinguish him from his grandson of the same name). According to the contemporary
historian Josephus, Rabban Shim'on ben-Gamli'el was assassinated by zealots (the anti-Roman war faction)
around the year 68 or 69 CE. His sudden death left a youngster as his successor, so it seems that after
the debacle of the year 70 the presidency was vested in Rabban Yochanan ben-Zakkai; after the death of
the latter the rather autocratic Rabban Gamli'el assumed the presidency and is known as Rabban Gamli'el
of Yavneh in order to distinguish him from his grandfather. (His son, Shim'on was president of the
Sanhedrin during the very difficult period following the collapse of the Bar-Kokhba revolt – mid 2nd
century – and his grandson was the great 'Rabbi', Rabbi Yehudah the President of the Sanhedrin,
who compiled the Mishnah. 'Rabbi' died in 217 CE.)

7:
Two versions of the text of our mishnah have come down to us: one if the version of the mishnah itself,
as given in the translation above, and the other is the one used in our Haggadah. The text in our
Haggadah tells us that Rabban Gamli'el used to say that anyone who did not mention the paschal lamb had
not fulfilled his duty: 'The paschal lamb, which our ancestors used to eat when the Temple was in
existence…' If this text is correct then obviously the Rabban Gamli'el referenced is Rabban
Gamli'el of Yavneh. However, there seems no reason not to assume that it is the text as given above that
is the original, which was later 'improved' when incorporated into the Haggadah by the addition of proof-
texts and the historical adjustment. After all, if the passage is included in the Haggadah for didactic
reasons it makes sense to explain to the child that we no longer actually have a paschal lamb to eat but
only have it figuratively represented. In this case, the Rabban Gamli'el of our mishnah is Rabban
Gamli'el the Elder – the same Rabban Gamli'el who is mentioned in 7:2 as instructing his servant to 'go
and roast our paschal lamb on the grating'.

To be continued.

Michael Lewyn writes:

Aren't other rituals patterned after Temple rituals? If so why did Jews avoid imitating Temple rituals
here while going out of their way to imitate such rituals elsewhere? How did they eat meat if it wasn't
roasted? And how did this custom of nonroasting fall into disuse?

I respond:

No ritual that was exclusively associated with the sacrificial system of the Bet Mikdash is still
practiced. (The Priestly Blessing was not exclusive to the Temple ritual.) After the destruction of the
Bet Mikdash many new customs were introduced as reminders of its erstwhile existence,
but they were not rituals of the Bet Mikdash itself. It became customary to avoid eating roast lamb at
the Seder service for this reason. (Immediately after the destruction there were sages of that generation
who seriously thought of outlawing the eating of meat and the drinking of wine in general, as signs of
deepest mourning, but this was thought by their colleagues to be too excessive.)

As the text of the original question points out: 'On all other nights we eat meat roasted,
stewed or boiled…'

I am not aware that the custom of refraining from eating roast lamb at the Seder service has fallen into
halakhic disuse. See what I wrote on 4:4 in this regard.

Exodus 12:27 for the paschal lamb:

Josh Greenfield writes:

Yet another possibility was raised by a participant at my family's seder this year. She noted that there
is actually only one question: 'In what way is this night different from all other nights?' What follows
are not separate questions, but different ways of explaining the question itself. That is, the child does
not so much ask 'Why do we eat ĥametz or matzah on all other nights, [but] tonight only matzah?' –
instead, the child points out this fact (and a few others) once the main question has already been asked.

I respond:

Apart from the fact that the opening sentence is better rendered as an exclamation (and will not
accurately bear the interpretation offered at Josh's Seder) there is nothing in this suggestion that one
can possibly object to. As we have seen, the sages of the Talmudic era saw this passage not so much as a
ritual but as a suggestion as to what a child might say in order to prompt the ritual response.

2:
Our tradition knows of two kinds of Hallel. Psalm 136 is called 'The Great Hallel', with which we
shall concern ourselves in our study of the next mishnah; and psalms 113-118 are known as 'Hallel' or
'The Egyptian Hallel'. The Gemara [Pesachim 117a] records about 'this Hallel' (i.e. the
Egyptian Hallel) that 'the prophets among them instituted that they should say it at every event [of
salvation] and every calamity that may befall: when they are redeemed they must recite it for their
redemption'. The Gemara [Pesachim 118a] also says that the reason for this is that this
collection of psalms contains five elements: the Exodus [Psalm 114:1], the splitting of the Red
Sea [114:3], the Giving of the Torah [ibid.], the resurrection of the dead [116:9]
and the birthpangs of the Messianic Age [115:1].

3:
When Hallel is recited at the Seder service it is divided: part is recited before the meal and the rest
after the meal. In all probability the reason for this is to encase the symbolic eating of the paschal
lamb by the recitation of Hallel in gratitude for the redemption that the lamb signifies.

To be continued.

A few years ago when I was preparing to teach this Mishna to 6th grade students it occurred to me that
'the father teaches' could refer to the entire rest of the Mishna. In other words the father, as a
teacher trying to encourage children/learners to think about what is before them says Ma Nishtana. (Do
you notice anything different?, Do you have any questions?) Well on other nights we eat hametz. (any
questions?) On other nights we eat all types of vegetables (any questions?) and so on. I think this
could account for the stories below where the Ma Nishtana is considered unnecessary. The father (parent)
is not supposed to teach the child to repeat back the words of the Mishna, but instead is encouraging
or even provoking questions. Any question will do. The Mishna tells us the most obvious perhaps.

I respond:

Certainly the Seder ritual has been seen by many as a paradigm of effective education. It is also
clear that the questions are really only 'excuses' for the answers. While there is no internal reason
why Cheryl's explication of the mishnah is not justified, it was not the way that tradition understood
the mishnah, starting from the Amora'im in the Gemara. Cheryl is right – as we have mentioned before –
that 'any question will do', but tradition did see the elements of Mah Nishtanah as reflecting questions
that might be suggested to 'he who does not know how to ask'. Already in Tannaitic times the actual
questioning had become a ritual. The Gemara [Pesachim 116a] states that if the son is clever
enough it is he that asks the questions; failing that the wife asks them; failing that 'he should ask
himself; even two scholars both of whom are well-versed in the laws of Passover should ask each other'
– and there follows immediately the text of 'Mah Nishtanah'.

Juan-Carlos Kiel asks about the Hebrew text of mishnah 3 of this chapter: he sees a
certain difference between the text as I translated it and the text as given in one of the resources he
used.

I respond:

This is quite possible. As you probably felt when we studied mishnah 3 the text his hopelessly
'corrupt' (which is a scholarly way of saying that if the scholar doesn't understand the text it must
be the fault of the text). There are subtle differences recorded in the various manuscripts. The one
Juan-Carlos quoted to me seems to reflect the text given by Rambam in his Mishnah Commentary; the
translation I gave is based on the Gemara.

5:
It seems that one of the reasons why the Seder service was ordained to take place during the evening of
Nisan 15th (and not during the daytime) was to emphasize the fact that the redemption from Egypt is
celebrated not only on the very day that the Exodus took place, but also at the same time of day that the
miracle began. Now, it seems that Bet Shammai took this consideration to much greater lengths than Bet
Hillel. Bet Shammai were of the opinion that Hallel, which accompanied the ceremonial eating of the
paschal lamb, should be recited at or after midnight. The Tosefta [Pesaĥim 10:6] explains:

6:
Our mishnah teaches (and this is the point that Bet Hillel so cogently make) that the whole ceremony
leading up to the paschal meal concludes with the 'blessing of redemption'. (Indeed, we perhaps do a
disservice to the sages when today we teach that the Seder commemorates the Exodus from Egypt (a
historical event) whereas they wished to emphasize that it commemorates the Redemption from Egypt (a
theological event) and the whole ceremony of 'telling' culminates in the berakhah praising God as the one
'who redeemed Israel'.

7:
Our mishnah also recalls a difference between Rabbi Tarfon and his younger contemporary (and friend) Rabbi
Akiva as regards the wording of this passage. When our mishnah says that "Rabbi Tarfon says [that
the text is] 'Who redeemed us and our ancestors from Egypt' and he would not conclude" it cannot
mean that he did not conclude the whole passage with a berakhah, for then the passage would be ritually
meaningless. It must mean that he did not include the additional text that Rabbi Akiva uses. Even
though halakhah and custom follow Rabbi Akiva, there must be many today who do not wish to pray for the
day when 'we shall eat [once again] offerings and paschal lambs, whose blood is splashed on the sides of
your altar'. I can see no grave objection to these people adopting the custom of Rabbi Tarfon and
excluding the additional text of Rabbi Akiva.

2:
In the Gemara [Pesachim 118a] a baraita is quoted:

3:
In the Gemara [Pesachim 118a] the identity of 'the Blessing of the Song' is also disputed. The
Amora of Eretz-Israel, Rabbi Yoĥanan, says that 'the Blessing of the Song' [Birkat ha-Shir] is
the passage that we have in our prayer-books today as the conclusion of 'Pesukei de-Zimra' on
Shabbat and Yom Tov, 'Nishmat'. The Babylonian Amora, Rav Yehudah, says that Birkat ha-Shir
is the blessing that concludes Hallel in our contemporary prayer-books as well. Rather than deciding
between the two views, it is established custom nowadays to say both passages, the first after the second.

4:
Our mishnah also states that one should not drink more wine between the third and fourth cups, even
though this is permitted between the first and the second and between the second and the third. The
Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Pesachim 71a] says that this is to prevent one getting drunk on too much
wine (or becoming drowsy). To counter the possible argument that there is no greater reason to fear
either eventuality from the wine between the third and fourth cups than that between any of the others,
the Gemara there also says that 'wine which comes after the meal can make one drunk; wine which is
a part of the meal will not do so'. I do not know whether there is a factual justification for
this claim.

Abba is ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu [God], the lamb is Israel, the two zuzim are the two luchot habrit [tablets
of the covenant], all the animals who eat are the kingdoms that attacked the people of Israel throughout
its history. At the end ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu will save and redeem the people.

I respond:

Reuven has here brought the traditional interpretation of the song – and it certainly makes sense. The
first time we find this ditty it comes from the school of Rabbi Eli'ezer ben-Yehudah of the German town
of Wurms [Wurmeise]. Rabbi Eli'ezer, also known as the Roke'aĥ, after his most celebrated work,
lived between 1165 and 1230 approximately. This certainly suggests that it is no more ancient than that.
The great Sefaradi sage, Rabbi Ĥayyim Yosef David Alkalai (Ĥida) [1724-1806 CE] claimed that there
were 'more than twenty explanations' of this piyyut.

I have already hinted at my own view, which is connected with the great efforts made by our tradition to
maintain the interest of the children throughout the evening by various means. The Gemara [Pesachim
108b-109a] quotes a baraita:

2:
Our present mishnah is concerned with two discrete issues: the prevention of 'afikoman' and the
situation if some of the celebrants fell asleep during the ceremony.

3:
The word 'afikoman' is well known to almost everybody – but not in the sense that it bears in the
context of our present mishnah. One thing is quite clear: it is an attempt to render into Hebrew the
Greek 'επιχωμον'- 'Epiĥomon'.

4:
Our sources offer many examples of the way this expression was used and understood; while they are not
all the same they all do (correctly) have one thing in common: the Greek expression refers to 'things
that happen after the meal'. In the Gemara [Pesachim 119b] it is variously described as disbanding
into small groups, distributing select items of leftovers to various people, or sweets for desert. The
Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Pesachim 70b ff] also makes it refer to these but adds also singing.

5:
The Greek 'Συμποσιον' 'symposion', which is probably best translated as 'dinner party' was the model for the
Seder celebratory meal. After the guests had eaten their fill there would follow
'επιχωμον' 'epiĥomon', the
after-dinner entertainment. This usually consisted of distributing choice leftovers to the honoured
guests, sweets for desert, more wine, singing songs, and entertaining discussion and then the party would
disband into smaller groups each going to another home to continue the celebration.

6:
The mishnah notes that despite its similarity to the traditional Greek symposium the paschal meal differed
in two major respects: no more wine was to be served after that served to accompany Grace After Meals –
except for the last cup which concluded the ceremony [see mishnah 7]; and also there were to be no after-
dinner celebrations.