Wednesday, April 09, 2014

hasieba and the chiyuv 4 kosos for ketanim

A) Rav Soloveitchik pointed out that from the language of the Rambam (Chameitz u'Matzah 7:7):

לפיכך כשסועד אדם בלילה הזה צריך לאכול ולשתות והוא מיסב דרך חירות
It seems that the mitzvah of haseiba is a din in seudas Pesach (k'she'soed adam...).

The Rambam and Rosh disagree whether someone who ate matzah or drank the 4 kosos without haseiba fulfills his mitzvah or not.  The Brisker Rav (does everybody have a Brisker Haggdah these days?) explains the underlying issue as follows: is haseiba an independent mitzvah, or just a tnai in how to fulfill the mitzvah of matzah or kosos?  If it is an independent mitzvah, then one can fulfill matzah or 4 kosos without fulfilling the mitzvah of haseiba.  If it is a tnai, then missing haseiba undermines the mitzvah of matzah or 4 kosos itself and you have eat and drink all over again.

Rav Soloveitchik had a tremendous question on this hesber.  The gemara has a din that if bandits force someone to eat matzah, he is yotzei the mitzvah.  If haseiba is an integral part of the mitzvah, how can that be?  It’s one thing to force matzah down someone’s throat – surely the gemara is not speaking of a case where they force the person to sit with haseiba as well?!

As we know from the haggdah, Rabban Gamliel teaches that if you fail to talk about pesach, matzah, and maror you are not yotzei the mitzvah.  What mitzvah?  The Rishonim (Rambam, Tos, Rambam) debate whether Rabban Gamliel meant the mitzvah of matzah, maror, and pesach, or whether he meant the mitzvah of haggadah.  In other words, are pesach, matzah, and maror necessary to fulfill the mitzvah of sipur yetzias Mitzrayim, or is sipur yetzias Mitzrayim a necessary ingredient of the mitzvos of pesach, matzah and maror?

Based on this chakira, the Rav suggested (See Moadei haRav, also R' Genack's sefer Gan Shoshanim siman 20) that eating matzah without haseiba is good enough for a kiyum of matzah qua matzah, but the Rosh holds that one must still eat again in order to fulfill the mitzvah of matzah qua an essential element of the mitzvah of haggdah. 

B) The gemara (108b) quotes a machlokes regarding whether ketanim are chayavim in 4 kosos:

 ת"ר הכל חייבין בארבעה כוסות הללו אחד אנשים ואחד נשים ואחד תינוקות א"ר יהודה וכי מה תועלת יש לתינוקות ביין

Rashbam explains:

 ואחד התינוקות. שגם הם נגאלו

I saw suggested (see here) based on this Rashbam that the hesber of the machlokes is whether the sevara of af hein hayu b’oso ha’nes creates a chiyuv on ketanim or not.  The problem is that the Mishna in Megillah (19b) quotes R’ Yehudah’s view that a katan can even be motzi a gadol in krias hamegillah.  Many Rishonim (Ramban, Tos, see Tos R’ Akiva Eiger there) explain that a katan becomes mechuyav just like a gadol because of af hein.  If so, how does R’ Yehudah’s view there jibe with his view here that af hein does not create a chiyuv in 4 kosos? 
I have a simpler question.  On that same amud in Pesachim the gemara writes that women are obligated in 4 kosos because of af hein.  Rashbam explains:
שאף הן היו באותו הנס. כדאמרינן (סוטה דף יא:) בשכר נשים צדקניות שבאותו הדור נגאלו 
According to Rashbam (as Tosfos on the spot notes and takes issue with) the sevara of af hein involves being a cause of redemption, not just a participant.  This sevara cannot apply to ketanim, so the Rashbam must mean something else entirely when he says  שגם הם נגאלו. 


  1. Anonymous11:40 AM

    Intersting explanation from the Rav...seems kind of roundabout though - that the amira of pesach, matza umaror is a kiyum of sippur, so therefore the achila is also part of the kiyum of sippur.

    Aside from that, IIRC the Rosh also holds that if you drank the 4 cups without heseiba you have to drink again. So would that mean that there too he was yotzei the 4 cups qua 4 cups but not qua sippur? I don't know if that makes sense. And I think it's dachuk to say that the Rosh meant you have to eat matza again only qua sippur, but weren't yoitze the cup at all. I'll try to look at the Gan Shoshanim inside tonight if I can.

  2. Anonymous11:54 AM

    I don't think the question on the Brisker Rav is much of a question. IIRC, his lashon is that according to the Rambam, if you eat matza without heseiba you are yotze the mitzva of matza "ketikuna" (maybe "bishleimusa", something like that.) Which implies that according to the Rosh, you're also yotze, just not bishleimusa. So the guy who was forced to eat was yotze but not bishleimusa, and according to the Rosh, you have to eat matza again, to be yotze bishleimusa.

    1. I did not look back at the GRI"Z to get the exact lashon, but (and I hope you don't mind me saying this) the way you are formulating it sounds a little too squishy (sorry, I don't have a better word) for a Brisker sevara. Either you are yotzei matzah, or not -- what does it mean to say you are not yotzei "b'shleimusa?" You are sitting on the fence because you want to have your cake (or matzah) and eat it too.

    2. Anonymous1:44 PM

      I respectfully disagree.
      It's meduyak in the lashon of the Brisker Rav, and additionally in the sefer Meorei Hamoadim, I believe Rav Dovid Soloveitchik explains his father's pshat the way I said, that acc the Rosh you're yotzei matza but not bishleimusa. (He may even be coming to answer this question of kafahu, but I don't recall offhand...)

    3. What does that mean -- either you are yotzei or not? You can't straddle the fence and have it both ways... I don't see how you've solved that problem.

    4. Anonymous2:54 PM

      I'm not sure what the issue lots of mitzvos we find that you can be yotze the chiyuv in a minimal fashion, but you can also be yotze in an ofen lechatchila or "bishleimusa."

      See the article by Rabbi Schachter here, where he discusses at length (based on Tosfos Nidda 66b) the different examples of mitzva bishleimusa on a level min hatorah.'tones_Yosef_Editor/K'tones_Yosef_-_In_honor_of_Rabbi_Yosef_Winefsky_zt'l#

      (the formatting is kind of messed up, but it's in Ginaz Egoz also)

    5. Look at how R' Sorotzkin puts it in his Rinas Yitzchak:
      His kashe on the Mordechai amounts to the same either/or point -- if you drink (acc to Rosh) w/o haseiba, then you are not mosif al hakoses because your drinking didn't count; if it did count, then why drink again? What does it mean to say you are yotzei b'dieved so avoid being mosif?
      His answer is that there are two different kiyumim: 1) achilas matzah 2) achilas matzah with haseiba, which he thinks is a different cheftza shel mitzvah. This is the same structure as RYBS is using -- two seperate kiyumim. I prefer RYBS approach, as the difference between the two kiyumim is sharper, but in any case, the basic structure of is the same.

    6. Had the Rosh just said you have to eat another zayis, then maybe (not that I would like it) you can say he means to get some better kiyum b'shleimusa. R' Shternbruch has a pshat that you need to eat again because each and every bite of matzah is an additional kiyum, so what does it hurt. But the Rosh says more than that, because his ra'aya is from the din that a shamash who eats b'haseiba is yotzei, from which is is medayek that if you don't eat b'haseiba then you are not yotzei. Korban Nesanel - even b'dieved. If you get credit for eating even w/o haseiba, then what's the diyuk? You are yotzei in any case, just not 100%.

    7. Anonymous3:53 PM

      I don't like Rav Shternbuch's explanation because it doesn't explain why you have to drink the kosos again.

      You have a good question from ahshamash sheachal, but I see that as a question on the Rosh, not on the Brisker Rav's explanation. IOW, the Rosh's diyuk is hashamash sheachal wo heseiba is not yotzei. That seems to be a direct contradiction to the gemara the Rav raised about kafuhu that says he is yotzei. Whatever pshat you say in the Rosh (whether the Rav's or Brisker Rav's) will have this problem. Behechrech you have to say the gemaras are talking about two different things, ie when one says yotzei it's not referring to the same thing as the other gemara. (Brisker Rav would likely say - one means you're yotzei the minimal, and the other one, shamash sheachal lo yatza means not yotzei beshleimus. the Rav would say that one is talking about being yotze matzah qua matza and the other qua sippur) But again, this is a problem with the Rosh, not with the Brisker Rav, and will be a weakness in any pshat in the Rosh.

    8. R' Shternbruch is mechaleik between matzah and the 4 kosos - he thinks you don't have to drink again by the kosos.

      Acc to the Rav's pshat in the Rosh, the diyuk stands -- you are not yotzei the second kiyum of sipur inherent in achilas matzah. It's just like according to the Rambam pshat in that gemara is you are not yotzei the mitzvah of haseiba, which is an independent din from the mitzvah of achilas matzah. The point is that you are not yotzei *something.* According to the Brisker Rav, there is one kiyum, not two -- there is just a better version and a less good version of that same kiyum. There is *nothing* that you are not yotzei in.

    9. Anonymous6:18 PM

      Oh so Rav Shternbuch is not saying pshat in the Rosh then. I actually would have said the opposite, if you're going to be mechalek between matza and the kosos, i'd say you have to drink the kosos again - that heseiba is a more integral part of the kosos because they're both for derech cheirus.

      I don't see that being any worse than the Rav's pshat - one is youre not yotzei the mitzva bishleimusa, the other is you're yotzei the basic mitzva.

    10. Anonymous8:10 AM

      I had my brother check Meorei Hamoadim for me. In one piece Rav Dovid says (answering a different kashya) that eating matza with heseiba is a fulfillmnt of the mitzva ketikuna, while without heseiba is shelo ketikuna, but a fulfillment nonethless.

      In the next piece it says a chacham echad asked Rav Dovid from kafuhu le'echol matza, and it must be (acc the Rosh) that he ate it beheseiba, but that's not derech cheirus, so how can it be? So rav Dovid responded that as long as you ate it beheseiba, no matter what the conditions, it's a kiyum of heseiba. So it seems not everyone takes it as a given that that gemara is without heseiba.

      And if you assume it is without heseiba, again I think the main problem is with the Rosh, because "yatza" implies you don't have to do anything further, while the Rosh holds you have to eat again. Even if you take the Rav's pshat, that you were yotze matza, but not matza-sippur, you still have to eat again acc the Rosh, while yatza implies you don't.

  3. You can say ketanim caused the geulah based on many midrashim of Miriam beinf Puah; and her telling her father "your gzeira of divorce is worse than Paroh's of killing the boys" and Moshe was born becausse of Miriam, and she was ketanah then.

    1. But you notice that the Rishonim quote the Midrash of "b'zechus nashim tzikaniyos" and not the story about Miriam to prove that af hein applies to women. I wouldn't say that Moshe's being born caused the geulah -- it just provided an instrument for G-d to use to bring the geulah.