haggadas eidus, haggadah shel pesach -- amira, dibur, haggadah: is there a difference?

The gemara has a derasha on the pasuk וְנֶ֣פֶשׁ כִּֽי־תֶחֱטָ֗א וְשָֽׁמְעָה֙ ק֣וֹל אָלָ֔ה וְה֣וּא עֵ֔ד א֥וֹ רָאָ֖ה א֣וֹ יָדָ֑ע אִם־ל֥וֹא יַגִּ֖יד וְנָשָׂ֥א עֲוֺנֽוֹ׃ (5:1) that כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד, once eidim testify, their testimony  cant be changed or retracted. How did Chazal get that from the pasuk? The Ritva in Kesubos 18 already discusses this question and gives three answers:

יש שפירש בתוספת מדכתיב ואם לא יגיד ונשא עונו דאית לן למדרש כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד כדדרשינן ביבם אשר לא יבנה בית אחיו כיון שלא בנה שוב לא יבנה וכיון דכן ע״כ הכי בעי למימר כיון שלא הגיד לכתחלה בענין זה שרצה לומר עכשיו שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד ואחרים פירשו שאת״ל חוזר ומגיד לא תמצא קרבן שבועות עדות דלעולם חוזר ומגיד וקרוב לזה פירש רש״י אינו חוזר ומגיד דגבי עדיות חדא הגדה כתיב ואם לא יגיד ... אבל הנכון דנפקא לן האי פי׳ דלא יגיד מדכתב על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר אלמא על מה שהעידו בב״ד יתקיים הדין לזכות או לחיוב לאלתר ואם יכולים לחזור ולהעיד האיך יקום דבר והיינו דאמר וכ״ת ה״מ על פה כלומר משום דכי כתיב יקום דבר ע״פ שנים עדים כתיב.

R' Chaim Kanievsky writes that his father once met a Polish iluy who distinguished between the terms haggadah, amira, and dibur.  Haggadah, he said, applies only to a one time event. The Steipler was very impressed with this vort and relayed it to the Chazon Ish who on the spot came up with 10 exceptions. 

Whenever I hear a vort like this my instinct is to grab my concordance and check a few examples to see if it works. Not sure why the Steipler didn't do that, but the Chazon Ish was a walking talking concordance.  My second instinct is to take a look at the Malbim.  Sure enough, he also distinguishes between these terms in a comment on our pasuk (#300):

אבל הבלתי מגיד הוא במקום שהגדתו מכרעת ושמבקשים לדעתו, שזה אחד ההבדלים בין מגיד ובין יתר לשונות כמו מספר, מדבר, אומר. שספורי דברים בעלמא הבלתי נוגעים להאיש השומע יתפוס לשון ״סיפור״; ״והדובר דברים״ בלתי חדשים מצד עצמם או ״האומר״ דרך ציוי או דבר בלתי מתחייב ממנו דבר חדש יתפוס ״אמירה״. ... כי גדר ההגדה שיגיד אל הנוגע בדבר ומודיע לו דבר נעלם שצריך לדעתו.

You need my input or information that I have to make a decision? That's מגיד.   

My hunch is that מגיד is connected to action. Avimelech complains to Avraham (Braishis 12:18)

וַיִּקְרָ֤א פַרְעֹה֙ לְאַבְרָ֔ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר מַה־זֹּ֖את עָשִׂ֣יתָ לִּ֑י לָ֚מָּה לֹא־הִגַּ֣דְתָּ לִּ֔י כִּ֥י אִשְׁתְּךָ֖ הִֽוא׃

Had I had more information, I would have stayed away from Sarah and not taken her.

The brothers tell Yaakov (Braishis 43:7)

וַיֹּאמְר֡וּ שָׁא֣וֹל שָֽׁאַל־הָ֠אִ֠ישׁ לָ֣נוּ וּלְמֽוֹלַדְתֵּ֜נוּ לֵאמֹ֗ר הַע֨וֹד אֲבִיכֶ֥ם חַי֙ הֲיֵ֣שׁ לָכֶ֣ם אָ֔ח וַנַּ֨גֶּד־ל֔וֹ עַל־פִּ֖י הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֑לֶּה הֲיָד֣וֹעַ נֵדַ֔ע כִּ֣י יֹאמַ֔ר הוֹרִ֖ידוּ אֶת־אֲחִיכֶֽם׃

They did a haggadah, which prompted the action / response of Yosef demanding that Yosef come to Egypt.

The most striking example is in the parsha of mikra bikkurim (26:2)

וּבָאתָ֙ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֵלָ֗יו הִגַּ֤דְתִּי הַיּוֹם֙ לַה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ כִּי־בָ֙אתִי֙ אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר נִשְׁבַּ֧ע יְהֹוָ֛ה לַאֲבֹתֵ֖ינוּ לָ֥תֶת לָֽנוּ

There is no decision being made here.  It's all about action.  The farmer says he did a haggadah by bringing his bikkurim, through his actions.

I think that's what the Ritva means in his last answer. When witnesses testify that Reuvain borrowed $100 from Shimon, that's not just a story they are telling, or information they are passing on. What they are doing is prodding the court to take action. They have in effect set the wheels of justice in motion. In halacha, words can be undone, but action is harder to undo.

M'inyana d'yoma, this all got me thinking about why we call what we do on Pesach "haggadah." You do have the term "sipur yetzi'as Mitzrayim," which we discussed once before, but everybody knows the book we read is a Haggadah and the mitzah is called maggid.  Are we testifying to the truth of the events?  Maybe.  Here too, I think there is a link to action. Firstly, we are not just telling a story. We are re-enacting the events that occurred. Secondly, if you walk away from the table at the end of seder night and say to yourself, "That was a nice story," you missed the point. What does that story inspire you to do? How will you act now that you have the gift of freedom? These are the questions to ask ourselves...

learning hilchos ha'chag -- a din in talmud torah or a din on Y"T?

The gemara (Pesachim 6a) has a din that one is supposed to start to learn hilchos pesach 30 days before the chag שואלין ודורשין בהלכות הפסח קודם הפסח שלשים יום ר' שמעון בן גמליאל אומר שתי שבתות. The gemara on the last daf in Megillah gives a different time frame and says one is supposed to learn the laws of the chag on the chag itself ת"ר משה תיקן להם לישראל שיהו שואלין ודורשין בענינו של יום הלכות פסח בפסח הלכות עצרת בעצרת הלכות חג בחג. So which is it?

Ran answers, based on the girsa of the RI"F who had the text שואלין and not שואלין ודורשין, that the din of 30 days does not require you to learn hilchos ha'chag. All it means is that if two different peole pose shaylos to a Rav at the same time, one that has to do with the chag and one that does not, from 30 days before the holiday onward all questions that relate to the holiday take precedence. (see Biur Halacha in siman 429 who discusses this Ran at length. Rashi and Tos clearly do not learn this way).

The Beis Yosef answers that the din of 30 days applies only to chag haPesach, as there is a large body of complex laws that are associated with the chag. As I've written before, the laws of Pesach touch on every area. You have your orach chaim halachos of the chag, you have to know choshen mishpat to sell your chameitz properly, you have to know yoreh de'ah to get into the laws of koshering and taaroves. You maybe get off light in the even ha'ezer dept.

The simplest answer to the question I think is that it's not an either/or choice -- embrace the power of "and." You are obligated to learn the halachos 30 days beforehand and are also supposed do so on Y"T itself (see Tos Meg 4a). The only problem with this approach is that it begs the question of why one would need to study the halachos of the chag on the chag if one already covered that material beforehand.

To help resolve this problem Rav Wahrman in Orot Pesach points out that the Rambam does not formulate the gemara in Megilah's din as an obligation to specifically learn halacha. The Rambam in tefilah 13:8 writes:

ומשה תיקן להם לישראל שיהו קוראין בכל מועד ענינו. ושואלין ודורשין בענינו של יום בכל מועד ומועד.

While the gemara refers to הלכות פסח בפסח הלכות עצרת בעצרת הלכות חג בחג, the Rambam just refers to ענינו של יום, a far broader term that encompasses any time of limud.

The Rambam in hil megillah (1:13) gives us another clue to how he understood this din. Rambam tells us that when Purim falls out on Shabbos:

ושואלין ודורשין בהלכות פורים באותה שבת כדי להזכיר שהוא פורים:

The point of learning the ענינו של יום (and I am not sure why he does not use that phrase in hil megillah, which would have bolstered R' Wahrman's argument) is not to familiarize oneself with the halachos. If you don't know what to do after studying the laws for 30 days before the chag, it is a bit too late. Rather, the point is to help in the commemoration of Y"T -- להזכיר שהוא פורים. The same would seem to hold true with respect to learning on the other Yamim Tovim. It is like a pirsumei nisa din.

I would note as well that the Rambam doesn't quote the gemara's din in hil talmud torah, where you might have expected it to be, but rather it's in hilchos tefilah, in the context of telling us what kri'as haTorah should be read on each Y"T. Just like the specific kri'ah of the day reflects and helps establish the character of the day, so too, focusing one's learning on topic matter related to the chag helps establish the character of the day.

Apart from the Rambam's chiddush as to what content matter should be studied, Rav Wahrman suggests a second nafka minah to this approach. Rashi (Meg 4) comments שואלין ודורשין. מעמידין תורגמן לפני החכם לדרוש אגרת פורים ברבים: The learning done on the day of Y"T has to be a public shiur. If the point was simply to study and know halacha, it would suffice to study shulchan aruch in the privacy of one's home. However, if the point is pirsumei nisa, or pirsum ha'chag, it makes sense that it must be a public display.

It is striking to me that Rav Wahrman does not point out that the Yerushalmi seems to say the exact opposite.

שואלין בהלכות פסח בפסח הלכות עצרת בעצרת הלכות חג בחג בבית ועד שואלין קודם לשלשים יום

Pnei Moshe: שואלין בהלכות פסח בפסח. כ״א ואחד בביתו אבל בבית ועד שמתקבצין הרבה בביה״מ ללמוד שואלין קודם לשלשים יום

The Biur Halacha quotes Chok Yaakov as suggesting that this is the resolution to the Ran's question that we started weith. The din of learning 30 days before the chag means that the topic of the chsag is the curriculum in the beis medrash where the pubic gathers to learn. The din of learning hilchos ha'chag on the chag is what one does in private, in one's home.

Rav Wahrman does raise a problem with his chiddush based on the Yalkut Shimoni on VaYakehl, our parsha:

רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בַּעֲלֵי אַגָּדָה אוֹמְרִים. מִתְּחִלַּת הַתּוֹרָה וְעַד סוֹפָהּ אֵין בָּהּ פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּרֹאשָׁהּ וַיַּקְהֵל אֶלָּא זֹאת בִּלְבַד, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, עֲשֵׂה לְךָ קְהִלּוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת, וּדְרֹשׁ לִפְנֵיהֶם בָּרַבִּים הִלְכוֹת שַׁבָּת, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּלְמְדוּ מִמְּךָ דּוֹרוֹת הַבָּאִים לְהַקְהִיל קְהִלּוֹת בְּכָל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת וְלִכְנֹס בְּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת לְלַמֵּד וּלְהוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׁמִי הַגָּדוֹל מִתְקַלֵּס בֵּין בָּנַי, מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ, מֹשֶׁה תִּקֵּן לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיִּהְיוּ דּוֹרְשִׁין בְּעִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם, הִלְכוֹת פֶּסַח בַּפֶּסַח, הִלְכוֹת עֲצֶרֶת בָּעֲצֶרֶת, הִלְכוֹת הֶחָג בֶּחָג

The gemara describes Moshe's gathering of Bn"Y on Shabbos to teach them halachos, לְלַמֵּד וּלְהוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר, and extrapolates from that to the chiyuv to do the same on Y"T. Sounds like the din of studying hilchos ha'chag on the chag is to know halacha, and not a pirsumei nisa like din.

Rav Wahrman says אכתי ישׁ לדון בּזה, but he doesn't explain further. My guess is that while his question highlights the words ְלַמֵּד וּלְהוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר, it does not do justice to the second half of that sentence: כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׁמִי הַגָּדוֹל מִתְקַלֵּס בֵּין בָּנַי. That line suggests a motivation for learning that goes beyond simply knowing issur v'heter. It sounds like the purpose of the study of the halacha was to give shevach to Hashem, not the knowledge for its own sake.

A couple of years ago I suggested that this Yalkut is not a din in talmud torah, i.e. that the mitzvah of talmud torah requires greater committment on shabbos than on a weekday, but rather the Yalkut is a din in Shabbos, i.e. a Shabbos without torah is an incomplete kiyum of mitzvas Shabbos. It would be like Shabbos without kiddush, or Shabbos without cholent. The same is true of Y"T. The chiyuv to learn hilchos ha'chag 30 days before the chag is a din in talmud torah, but learning on the y"t is a kiyum in hil' Y"T. (See this post discussing R' Zolti's chiddush that talmud torah can be a kiyum in simchas Y"T).

R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's chiddush on what constitutes a hefsek

No she'hechiyanu is recited in kiddush on shevii shel Pesach.  What if a person made a mistake and accidentally said shehechiyanu?  Is it a hefsek?  Does he have to repeat kiddush?

I would have expected the MB to deal with this, but he doesn't (at least nowhere I could find).  When I raised the question my SIL suggested a parallel to kiddush on second night of R"H.  Even though according to some shitos there is no obligation to say shehechiyanu, which is why we try to have a new fruit or wear new clothes, we are not choshesh that doing so may be a hefsek.  I countered that this is not a good analogy.  Mei'ikar ha'din we pasken that on R"H there is an obligation to say shehechiyanu.  It's nice to be yotzei all shitos and try to have a new fruit, but it's not an absolute requirement.  Shevii shel Pesach is actually the flipside case, as on shevii shel Pesach mei'ikar ha'din there is no obligation at all to say shehechiyanu.

 

R' Shlomo Zalman addresses himself to this question and has an interesting sevara.  R'SZ suggests that hefsek, by definition, is a result of hesech ha'daas.  If you start talking about something else in the middle of making a bracha, it's not the interruption of the words themselves which are the issue, but rather it's the fact that in speaking about something else you are diverting attention and thought away from the bracha.  Therefore, if a person mistakenly thought they were obligated to say shehechiyanu in kiddush, since in their mind they are reciting kiddush as required, there is no hesech hadaas from the bracha, and hence the addition is not a hefsek.

 

Let me give you two sources, one in support of RS"Z's idea, one that poses a difficulty.  Let's say a person recited kiddush only to discover as they are about to drink that the kos was filled with water.  The MG"A (quoted by MB) writes that the person has to repeat kiddush, as they failed to fulfill the chiyuv of reciting kiddush al ha'kos.  However, so long as they intended to drink other wine during the meal which was available on the table, they cdo not repeat borei pri ha'gefen.  That bracha was chal on the wine on the table.  What does this have to do with RS"Z?  Even though the kiddush recited over the cup of water counted for nothing and was a hefsek of meaningless words, we see from the MG"A that it doesn't matter.  The the initial borei pri ha'gefen still stands and can combine with the kiddush now being repeated over the refilled kos.  This fits beautifully with RS"Z's reasoning.  The person was unaware the first time around that the kos had water in it, and so there was never a hesech hadaas from the first moment to the last. 

 

R' Akiva Eiger is not a fan of this MG"A, and he more clearly spells out his shira in the following case in hil havdalah (interestingly also quoted by MB, in the Biur Halacha): one is not permitted to use a candle that was lit b'issur on shabbos for havdalah. The SA writes that the bracha of m'orei ha'eish needs to be repeated if one does so.  R Akiva Eiger jumps in and adds that in this scenario, one has to go back and repeat the borei pri ha'gefen as well.  Since the bracha of me'orei h'eish is invalid, it is a hefsek in the havdalah and invalidates the entire thing.  You can see why l'shitaso RAK"E doesn't like the previous MG"A, and you can see the difficulty this poses to R"SZ's sevara.  There was no hesech hadaas here.  The person intended to recite havdalah.  The only problem was the candle used invalidated the bracha.

 

According to many shitos a woman is not obligated to say the bracha of borei m'orei ha'eish in havdalah.  If she does so, is it a hefsek?  Halichos Beisa is medayek (against the view of R' Tukichinski) from the MB that women may add the bracha if they desire to do so and it is not a hefsek.  Unlike in the cases above where the bracha was invalid, or in the case of shehechiyanu where it is a completely inappropriate addition, in this case the addition is appropriate, just not obligatory.  

A far greater problem is the question of whether a woman answering amein to shehechiyanu in kiddush when she already said the bracha at the time of hadlakas neiros is a hefsek or not.   

back where we started from -- or (hopefully) not; interesting chiddush of the Ben Ish Chai re: isru chag

1) Chazal tell us that not only did Yam Suf split to allow Bn"Y to cross, but all the waters in the world split as well.  Some explain that water symbolizes all of our troubles.  הושיעני אלקים כי באו מים עד נפש (Teh 69).  Shevi'i shel Pesach is not just about getting across the particular obstacle of Yam Suf, but is about being able to get across all of the obstacles and difficulties in our path.

Some have the custom to stay up all night learning.  I want to suggest that water also symbolizes, as it does many other places, אין מים אלא תורה.  You are stuck on a difficult Tos?  You are breaking your head on a R' Akiva Eiger?  Shevi'i shel Pesach is for you.  You can break through the difficulty and get to the other side.

2) According to Tos (Archin 15) Bn"Y did not cross the Yam Suf from one side to the other, but made rather traverssed the sea in a U shape path to end up back on the same side that they started out on.  Even though Bn"Y ended up back where they started from, they had undergone a sea change (pun intended) in the course of their journey.  The Egyptians who had persecuted them were finally destroyed completely, never to haunt them again.  My wife suggested that this is the lesson of shevi'i shel Pesach.  We may find ourselves at the end of the chag back where we started from -- the same home, the same job, the same challenges and pressures -- but hopefully we have undergone change over the past week and are not the same people coming out of the chag that we were going in.

3) R' Shternbruch in his teshuvos (vol 2 #321) quotes an interesting chiddush of the Ben Ish Chai that on isru chag one should wear bigdei shabbos and only do melacha necessary for davar ha'aveid, like chol ha'moed.  I don't know if anyone accepts this shita l'halacha (I asked a Sefardi Rav yesterday about it and he was unfamiliar with this view), but even if it not lmaaseh, we can still take the message with us of clinging to the orot of the chag as it departs from us and not being too quick to rush back into the turmoil of the mundane world.

התיצ⁠בו וראו את⁠ י⁠שועת ה׳ - a challenge, not a promise

  וַיּ֨⁠וֹשַׁע ה׳ בַּיּ֥⁠וֹם הַה֛וּא אֶת⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִיַּ֣⁠ד מִצְרָ֑יִם  Why do we need the words בַּיּ֥⁠וֹם הַה֛וּא in that pasuk?  They obviously do not come l'afukei other days or times, as Hashem has saved us on many occassions and continues to do so.  Ohr haChaim answers that until this point Bn"Y were not secure in their salvation.  There had been a yetzi'as Mitzrayim, but they recognized that they were not out of the woods yet.  It was only בַּיּ֥⁠וֹם הַה֛וּא at the splitting of the sea that they could breathe a sigh of relief.  R' Levi Yitzchak mi'Berdichiv offers a different explanation.  There are certain points in time where Hashem reveals his love for the Jewish people and showers them with his goodness.  The days most mesugal for this are the days of Pesach.  וַיּ֨⁠וֹשַׁע ה׳ happened davka because it was בַּיּ֥⁠וֹם הַה֛וּא, *the* auspicious time for yeshu'a.  These last two days of Pesach are that special time, a mesugal time, so make the most of them.

We find the term בּנים used over and over in connection with the splitting of Yam Suf, e.g. מעביר בּניו בּין גזרי ים סוף, and וראו בּניו גבורתו שׁבּחו והודו לשׁמו.  Bn"Y could have just escaped Egypt and there did not have to be a splitting of Yam Suf and final destruction of Egypt.  That was just icing on the cake, an extra bonus.  Did we really even deserve it?  When a parent deals with his children, that is not a question that comes up.  We give our children plenty, and it's not because we think they are the greatest and deserve it -- often they don't.  It's because they are our children, full stop.  We want to give, whether they deserve it or not.  Yam Suf happened because we are Hashem's children.  Saving slaves from persecution is the morally correct thing to do.  That's doesn't prove G-d has a special relationship with the Jewish people.  Yam Suf is the icing on the cake, the bonus, the part that was not required.  It's because we are בּנים (see Sefas Emes 5638).

Do you know what the biggest miracle that occurred at Yam Suf was?  Was it really the splitting of the Yam Suf?  The Yam split other times.  The Yam even split for individuals, as the gemara in Chulin relates regarding R' Pinchas ben Yair.  There was something else that happened that was an amazing miracle that people don't even think about.  You go into any shul, sit somewhere in the back, in the talking section, and you will have 2 Jews and 3 opinions about everything.  Everyone is qualified to be Prime Minister of Israel, chief of the Army, head of the Federal Reserve, Rabbi and President of the shul, etc.  So much latent talent is in those back rows just waiting to be discovered!  And no one is bashful about giving their opinion and revealing their talents -- you don't even have to ask.  The same thing went on at Yam Suf.  Some people insisted they should return to Egypt, the frummies started davening, others wanted to fight.  Moshe's response demanded something entirely different from them: הִֽתְיַצְּ⁠ב֗וּ וּרְאוּ֙ אֶת⁠־יְ⁠שׁוּעַ֣ת ה׳.  That's what you have to do.   ה׳ יִלָּ⁠חֵ֣ם לָכֶ֑ם וְ⁠אַתֶּ֖⁠ם תַּחֲרִשֽׁוּן.  Stop with the advice.  Stop with the speeches.  Stop with the 2 Jews and 3 opinions.  Now is not the time for that -- it's a time to be quiet.  You have a bunch of opinionated Jews gathered together and you want them to be quiet?  Now that's a miracle!

Kidding aside, the Sefas Emes (5632) explains that הִֽתְיַצְּ⁠ב֗וּ וּרְאוּ֙ אֶת⁠־יְ⁠שׁוּעַ֣ת ה׳ is not just a promise -- it's an avodah.  We all like to be back seat drivers and we all have good advice not just for our fellow coreligionists, but for Hashem as well.  We would like Him to being an end to the hostage situation in a certain way, to bring geulah in the certain way (some people will tell you it must be through the State, other [misguided] people will say the State is an obstacle), to give us specific brachos and yeshu'os.  We have our agenda.  The Torah is telling us to put the agenda aside --  וְ⁠אַתֶּ֖⁠ם תַּחֲרִשֽׁוּן.  Our job sometimes is to talk about what we want, but to ask just for kavod shamayim in this world, to want to just see הִֽתְיַצְּ⁠ב֗וּ וּרְאוּ֙ אֶת⁠־יְ⁠שׁוּעַ֣ת ה׳ in whatever form it takes, however He decided to bring it about.  

We read in the shirah that the nation of the world tremebled in their boots after what happened at Yam Suf.  שָֽׁמְ⁠ע֥וּ עַמִּ֖⁠ים יִרְגָּז֑וּן⁠ ⁠חִ֣יל אָחַ֔ז יֹשְׁ⁠בֵ֖י פְּ⁠לָֽשֶׁת and אָ֤ז נִבְהֲלוּ֙ אַלּ⁠וּפֵ֣י אֱד֔וֹם⁠ ⁠אֵילֵ֣י מוֹאָ֔ב יֹֽאחֲזֵ֖מוֹ רָ֑עַד⁠ ⁠נָמֹ֕גוּ כֹּ֖ל יֹשְׁ⁠בֵ֥י כְ⁠נָֽעַן.  We would love for a miracle like this in our times.  We would love for Iran to be trembling, for the terrorists to be trembling.  But how did Bn"Y know what the nations in Canaan were thinking?  How did they know they had heard about the miracle and were afraid?  

The fight we are in is not just a geopolitical fight or a military fight.  The world opposes our ideology, our principles, our philosophy.  When you sit down to daven and can't focus, that's the outside world winning the battle against us.  When you feel Hashem close and your avodah soars, your Jewish pride soars, that's another victory.  Bn"Y didn't need to read the Canaan Times to find out what was going on with the nations.  They knew because they felt it within them.  They felt themselves on a high, and therefore knew that if that's the case, the enemy has no power over them.   Iran would be trembling, as would every single nation in the UN, if we understood fully what it means to be בּניו שׁל מקום and acted as such, if we put our bickering aside and in its place  וְ⁠אַתֶּ֖⁠ם תַּחֲרִשֽׁוּן, and if we stopped the backseat driving and focussed on the one task of הִֽתְיַצְּ⁠ב֗וּ וּרְאוּ֙ אֶת⁠־יְ⁠שׁוּעַ֣ת ה׳.  

If we want to see it, and pray to see it, we will see it.

why the GR"A objected to reading haggadah on shabbos ha'gadol

I've seen some folks referring to this Shabbos as Shabbos ha'Gadol.  Technically, next Shabbos is Shabbos haGadol, but the MB (430:2) writes that the Rav should give his derasha this Shabbos.  If the Rav starts teaching hilchos pesach in a derasha next Shabbos, it's too late to make a difference. 

The Rama writes that the minhag is to read the haggadah mincha time on Shabbos haGadol.  GR"A quoted in Biur Halacha objects.  We read in the haggadah יכול מר״ח...בּעבור זה- בּשעה שׁמצה ומרור מונחים לפניך .  On Shabbos haGadol there is no מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך.  The question is, "So what?"  Of course you can't fulfill the mitzvah of haggadah on Shabbos haGadol because it's not the time for matzah and maror, but that's not the intent.  It's just a minhag b'alma, to familiarize oneself with the text beforehand.  Why does the GR"A read the derasha as a *prohibition*?   

 

My SIL Aryeh sent me a mareh makom to a Yaavetz who suggests there may be a problem of bal tosif here.  I don't understand how that can be.  Bal tosif does not apply outside the zman ha'mitzvah when one has no kavanah for a kiyum mitzah (see R"H 28).  Also, if that was the GR"As intent, he should say "bal tosif." 

 

Perhaps one can explain the GR"A based on a Terumas haDeshen quoted in Rama 471:2 (in the MB it says in parenthesis next to this din that it is in Th"D siman 7.  I'll save you a lot of time.  It's in siman 125 here.) that says if a katan is too little to really understand what is going on on pesach night you can feed him early.  However, if the katan is within chinuch age and understands, you should make him wait and not give him matzah too eat early.  Why?  Explains the Th"D: כיון שׁאין המצה חידושׁ הוא לקטן.  If he eats matzah early, what he sees at the seder is old news.  There is nothing striking that will elicit his curiosity.  (See as well the Th"D in 137 regarding starting the seder before nighfall: והשׁינוי נמי אין כּאן when the right time is reached.)

 

We see from the Th"D that eating matzah early is not just a chisaron in the kiyum of matzah, like Rashi writes in the beginning of Arvei Pesachim (99b) that you can't eat matzah on erev Pesach from mincha time onward כדי שיאכל מצה של מצוה לתיאבון, but it's a chisaron in the kiyum of sipur and haggadah because it turns the experience into something stale.  The sipur also has to be לתיאבון.

 

I don't want to repeat my entire post from 5 years ago, so I'll just give you the punchline from the Ramban at the end of P' Mishpatim (24:1): ולא יאמר ׳ויספר׳ אלא בחדשות אשר יגיד.  The word "sipur" means you are relating something new.  Old news doesn't count.  I wanted to suggest that based on this Ramban we have a new insight into what the goal of "sipur" yetzi'as Mitzrayim is.  It's not just to tell the story of what happened, but it is to make that story fresh, exciting, relevant – something new.   

 

R' Akiva Medlov suggests that this is pshat in the GR"A as well.  To come back to the Th"D:

 

דאין להאכילו מצה דדרשינן והגדת לבנך כו' ובעבור זה לא אמרתי אלא בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך ואם ימלא הבן כבר כריסו מן המצות היאך שייך לומר בעבור זה כיון דאין המצה חידוש לו לקטן:

 

Leil ha'seder is the birthday of the Jewish people.  If you got a peek at your birthday present in advance, it spoils the surprise when you open the box; kal v'chomer if you got a slice of birthday cake in advance, it's just not the same.  Matzah is our birthday cake or birthday present; sipur is like singing "Happy Birthday" at the party.  If you have a slice of matzah in advance and sing the song beforehand, whether it is the afternoon beforehand or the Shabbos haGadol beforehand, the party isn't much of a party.  The cake is not as fresh, the excitement of opening the presents and finding out what you got isn't there  That's what bothered the GR"A.  Don't ruin the party.  Don't ruin the freshness and excitement of leil ha'seder. 

 

Even if you follow the Rama and not the GR"A, that's a goal to keep in mind.

mitzvah of achilas korban pesach: beautiful diyuk of the Rogatchover

The Rogatchover has a beautiful diyuk in the lashon haRambam.  In hil Chu"M 8:7 the Rambam writes

ואחר כך מברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על אכילת הזבח ואוכל מבשר חגיגת ארבעה עשר תחלה. ומברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על אכילת הפסח ואוכל מגופו של פסח. ולא ברכת הפסח פוטרת של זבח ולא של זבח פוטרת של פסח:

Later in that same perek, the Rambam continues 

ואחר כך נמשך בסעודה ואוכל כל מה שהוא רוצה לאכול ושותה כל מה שהוא רוצה לשתות. ובאחרונה אוכל מבשר הפסח אפילו כזית ואינו טועם אחריו כלל.

In the first halacha, the Rambam refers to eating מגופו של פסח.  In the latter halacha, the Rambam refers to eating מבשר הפסח. Why the switch in terminology?

There is a fundamental machlokes Rashi and the Rambam with respect to the mitzvah of achilas pesach that opens the door to understanding the Rambam's precise use of language here.  

The Mishna in Pesachim 84 tells us  כל הנאכל בשור הגדול יאכל בגדי הרך וראשי כנפים והסחוסים  Rashi explains 

כל הנאכל בשור הגדול כו'. שכבר הוקשה כל מה שעתיד להקשות בו: יאכל בגדי הרך. ראוי לאכילה בפסח בן שמנה ימים אבל מה שאין נאכל בשור הגדול אין נמנין עליו בפסח אע"פ שעכשיו רך הוא עתיד להקשות בסופו

According to Rashi our sugya comes to answer the basic question of "What parts of the animal must be eaten?"  

Rashi alludes to the machlokes R"Y and Reish Lakish in the gemara

 איתמר גידין שסופן להקשות רבי יוחנן אמר נמנין עליהן בפסח ריש לקיש אמר אין נמנין עליהן בפסח

If a piece of meat is soft now but would become hard if the animal matured, need it be eaten?  Do we look at the state of the meat now, or do we judge by what can be eaten in a mature animal?  The gemara loops our mishna into the issue:

יתיביה ריש לקיש לר' יוחנן כל הנאכל בשור הגדול יאכל בגדי הרך ומה הן ראשי כנפים והסחוסים הני אין אבל גידין שסופן להקשות לא א"ל תנא הני וה"ה להנך

The Rambam (K.P 10:10) has a different spin on this sugya.  He paskens:

גידין הרכין שסופן להקשות אע"פ שהן ראויין לאכילה עתה ונאכלין בפסח אין נמנין עליהן. 

The question is not, "What must be eaten?" but rather, "What parts of the animal can one do minuy on?"  גידין שסופן להקשות are excluded from minuy, but they still must be eaten, as the Rambam clearly says,ונאכלין בפסח!  

What we see from the Rambam (R' Chaim in the stencils as a slightly different hesber) is that there are two dinim, what the Rogatchover calls (bottom of first column here) the גוף הפּסח vs the תורת מצוה of eating the pesach, or what I would call 1) the chalos shem korban pesach on the animal vs 2) the chovas hagavra to eat korban pesach.  

You can have something that is not included in the mitzvah of minuy because there is no chovas hagavra to eat it, but at the same time because there is a chalos shem korban pesach on the entire animal, it must be consumed.

Some nafka minos the Rogatchover mentions:

A)  גידין שסופן להקשות can be eaten in a differnt chabura, unlike korban pesach which must be eaten all in the same chabura

B) גידין שסופן להקשות can be consumed after chatzos, which is the endpoint according to R' Elazar ben Azarya for the mitzvas achilas pesach of the gavra

C) גידין שסופן להקשות can be eaten even by those who have not done minuy on this particular korban

Coming back to the Rambam in hil Chu"M, when the Rambam speaks about the mitzva of achilas hakorban, he uses the expression eating מגופו של פסח, to the exlusion of גידין שסופן להקשות.  The Rambam then later in the perek tells us that at the end of the meal there is a mitzvah to eat another k'zayis, and here he uses the term מבשר הפסח, a more inclusive term and includes גידין שסופן להקשות.  The chovas ha'gavra of achilas korban pesach has already been fulfilled at the start of the meal, but one must consume some of the cheftza shel korban to fulfill the idea of being נאכל על השׂובע and to consume what one can to avoid nosar. 

why Rashi gives 2 different reasons for 4 kosos

Rashi on the first Mishna in Arvei Pesachim writes that the 4 kosos on leil ha'seder correspond to the 4 leshonos of geulah mentioned in our parsha:

ארבע כוסות. כנגד ארבעה לשוני גאולה האמורים בגלות מצרים והוצאתי אתכם והצלתי אתכם וגאלתי אתכם ולקחתי אתכם בפרשת וארא:

However, on daf 108, commenting on R' Yehoshua ben Levi's din that even women have to drink 4 kosos because שאף הן היו באותו הנס, Rashi there writes that the kosos correspond to the kosos mentioned in the dream of Sar haMashkim:

ארבע כוסות. שלשה כנגד ג' כוסות שנאמרו בפסוק זה וכוס פרעה בידי וגומר ורביעי ברכת המזון

Why does Rashi gives two different reasons for the 4 kosos?

If you were reading this blog close to 20 years ago you know there is a chakira of the Brisker Rav (stencils Archin 3) as to how the principle of af hein works.  Without af hein, women would be exempt from the mitzvah of 4 kosos because it is a mitzvas aseh she'hazman gerama.  Yesh lachkor: does af hein simply lift the ptur of zman gerama, or is it a new mechayeiv, i.e. even though the mitzvah may be zman gerama, in this case there is a new reason for women to be chayavos?  

Tos and Rashbam disagree as to whether af hein means women were part and parcel of the dangers of galus Mitzrayim, or whether it means they were the cause of the geulah (see this post for a nafka mina):

באותו הנס. פי' רשב''ם שעל ידם נגאלו וכן במגילה ע''י אסתר ובחנוכה ע''י יהודית וקשה דאף משמע שאינן עיקר ועוד דבירושלמי גריס שאף הן היו באותו ספק משמע באותה סכנה דלהשמיד להרוג ולאבד 

It could be that this machlokes hinges on the chakira of the Brisker Rav. According to Rashbam, it's not enough to simply equate women with men, to say that they shared the same pains of galus.  Af hein demands coming up with a special reason to be mechayeiv women because af hein is a mechayeiv in its own right.

This could be why Rashi gives two different reasons for 4 kosos.  Rashi on the Mishna is explaining why even a poor person has to have 4 kosos, and so he invokes the reason on ארבעה לשוני גאולה האמורים בגלות מצרים.  However, that's not a good enough reason to be mechayeiv women. These leshonos that are part of בגלות מצרים, which women experienced alongside the men, would just equate them to men, but af hein demands creating a new mechayeiv. Therefore, Rashi on daf 108 refers to the kosos in Saf haMashkim's dream.  Targun Yonasan explains Yosef's interpretation of that dream as follows (Braishis 40:10):

ואמר ליה יוסף דין סוף פושרנא דחלמא תלתי מצוגייא תלתי אבהת עלמא הינון אברהם יצחק ויעקב דמן בני בניהון עתידין למשתעבדא למצרים בטינא ובליבנא ובכל פולחנהא באנפי ברא ומן בתר כדין מתפרקין על יד תלת רעיין     

The three "shepherds" of Moshe, Aharon, and Miriam delivered Bn"Y from galus; they were instrumental in bringing about the geulah. This sounds like Rashbam's approach of seeing women as the cause of the nes, not just participants in the experience.

(See the Kli Chemdah on our parsha who also discusses this stira in Rashi.)

why spill off wine when reading the 10 makkos

Why dip your finger in wine and spill off a it when you read the makkos in the haggadah?  My wife suggested that it is not because we feel bad for the Egyptians; it's because we feel bad for our fellow Jews who witnessed the makkos and yet many of whom still wanted to stay behind in Egypt.  

Parenthetically, we tell the ben ha'rasha that had he been in Egypt he would not have experienced geulah, but in fact, we know that there were resha'im who did leave Egypt with Klal Yisrael, e.g. Dasam and Aviram.  The Nesivos in his haggadah Maaseh Nissim explains that a person can be a mechalel shabbos, for example, but still believe in geulah and by virtue of that belief, earn geulah.  I would add that I assume the flipside of the coin is also true -- one can be shomer shabbos 100% but fall short in one's belief in the potential redemption of Klal Yisrael.

seeing Hashem's goodness

 המאכילך מן במדבר למען ענותך  What kind of suffering could there be in having mon to eat?  The gemara in Yoma (74b) comments  אמר אינו דומה מי שרואה ואוכל למי שאינו רואה ואוכל אמר רב יוסף מכאן רמז לסומין שאוכלין ואין שבעין If you thought of steak when eating the mon, you tasted steak, but the food still looked like mon; therefore, a person was never fully satiated or satisfied.  From here, says the gemara, we learn that a blind person who cannot ever see his food never really feels satiated either.

I saw quoted in the name of the Damesk Eliezer that this is why we daven on Yom Tov שׂבּענו מטובך.  We don't just want Hashem to give us טובה, all that is good for us.  He does that all the time.  The problem is that we don't see His goodness for what it is, as we live in a world of hester.  שׂבּענו מטובך -- we want to be able to see the goodness, not just believe in it, as only then will we feel satiated from Hashem's blessing.

הפּסח נאכל על השׂובע.  The korban pesach was eaten only after one was satiated and full, as a desert.  We have to be satiated and full from Hashem's goodness to truly take away the message of Pesach with us.

teeth and our spiritual DNA; why I don't like vegetables, haseiba and chipazon; the seder as a re-enactment of Yakov receiving his father's blessing

1) The scariest thing about what is going on at Columbia, Yale, MIT,  et al, is that the radical Jew hater students of today are the professors, business leaders, and politicians of tomorrow.  There is little future for Jews in America, and I've been writing that for years.  

My hunch (I would love to see if anyone has done a study on this) is that had you taken a poll before events of the past few months of 12th graders in your average Jewish day school high school, you would have found more students aspiring for a spot in an ivy league college than students aspiring to make aliya. 

Hashem has forced us the hard way to reassess our values.  

2) For some reason someone in my house last night mentioned using teeth to identify a body through DNA (don't ask).  I said that I thought teeth were usable if there were dental records like X-rays or impressions of the teeth, but not for DNA.  Turns out I was wrong.  Punkt fahrkert -- the first hit in my google search says, "DNA is an excellent means for identification of unidentified human remains. As dental pulp is surrounded by dentin and enamel, which forms dental armor, it offers the best source of DNA for reliable genetic type in forensic science."  

My wife heard this and immediately chimed in that this is the pshat in הקהה את שיניו.  The rasha wants to eliminate his spiritual DNA, his connection to Klal Yisrael.  It's the teeth that are the best means of preserving DNA, so that's what we point to when we reply to him.  I think it's a great pshat.

3) The gemara in Eiruvin (4a) quotes a Mishna in Negaim:

הנכנס לבית המנוגע וכליו על כתיפיו וסנדליו וטבעותיו בידיו הוא והם טמאין מיד היה לבוש כליו וסנדליו ברגליו וטבעותיו באצבעותיו הוא טמא מיד והן טהורין עד שישהא בכדי אכילת פרס פת חיטין ולא פת שעורין מיסב ואוכל בליפתן

Why does is the eating davka  מיסב ואוכל, b'haseiba?  Rashi writes:   מיסב. שהייה זו בהסיבה שיערוהו ולא בנאכלת בעמידה והולך ובא שהוא שוהה באכילתו יותר  When you recline and are engaged in doing nothing but eating, the eating goes faster than when you are walking around with your plate (hence the reason people linger at smorgasbords).

Maybe another reason to do haseiba on Pesach night is as a sign of chipazon, because when you eat that way you eat faster.

4) R' Tzadok haKohen writes that the reason we start the seder with karpas, a vegetable, is because Adam haRishon, in response to his eating eitz ha'daas, was cursed וְאָכַלְתָּ֖ אֶת־עֵ֥שֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶֽה.  (Adam complained that he cannot be so degraded as to eat like an animal of the field,  so Hashem softened the blow a bit and allowed him to eat bread, בְּזֵעַ֤ת אַפֶּ֙יךָ֙ תֹּ֣אכַל לֶ֔חֶם. )  Pesach is not just about the release from Egypt, but is about the tikun of man's earliest sin as well.  That is the ultimate goal of geulah, which is still in process.  

I don't like eating vegetables.  Most parents have to twist their kids' arms to get them to eat veggies.  I think this may be a remnant deep in our psyche of Adam haRishon's reaction.   Either that, or vegetables just don't taste very good.  

5) R' Noson Gestetner points out that there are a number of parallels between what we do on Pesach night and the events surrounding Yaakov getting the bracha from Yitzchak.  Yaakov wore special clothes; on leil ha'seder we wear a kittel.  The  שְׁנֵ֛י גְּדָיֵ֥י עִזִּ֖ים טֹבִ֑ים are an allusion to the korban pesach and the korban chagiga.  Yaakov said to his father קֽוּם־נָ֣א שְׁבָ֗ה וְאׇכְלָה֙ מִצֵּידִ֔י upon which Rashi comments שבה – לשון מיסב על השלחן, that this means haseiba.  Yakov brings wine,  וַיָּ֧בֵא ל֦וֹ יַ֖יִן וַיֵּֽשְׁתְּ, which may be an allusion to the 4 kosos.  Rashi comments on  וַיָּ֛רַח אֶת⁠־רֵ֥יחַ בְּגָדָ֖יו וַֽיְבָרְכֵ֑הוּ וַיֹּ֗אמֶר רְאֵה֙ רֵ֣יחַ בְּנִ֔י כְּרֵ֣יחַ שָׂדֶ֔ה  that  שנתן בו ריח טוב, וזהו שדה תפוחים.  Rashbam adds  את השדה שהוא מלא נרד וכרכום קנה וקנמון.  These are the basic ingredients of our charoset.  

Why do we have this strange minhag of stealing the afikoman?  It all harkens back to Yaakov "stealing" the brachos, which we re-enact this night of leil ha'seder.  

There is a Midrash Pli'ah on the words  בָּ֥א אָחִ֖יךָ בְּמִרְמָ֑ה וַיִּקַּ֖ח בִּרְכָתֶֽךָ that that says that Yitzchak showed Eisav the afikoman.  The Sheivet haMussar quotes that the word בְּמִרְמָ֑ה is equal to the gemastriya of afikoman -- pretty incredible.  

This explains, says R' Gestetner, why Yitzchak told Eisav that he already ate from the meal brought to him earlier and so there was nothing he could do for Eisav.  Why not eat again?!  There's always room for desert!  The answer is that Yitzchak had already eaten afikoman, and אין מפטירין אחר הפּסח אפיקומן.

Chag kasher v'sameich!  

Kozhiglover on why this shabbos is called shabbos ha'gadol

My son quotes a letter of the L Rebbe in which he writes that it's not by accident that Pesach comes in chodesh ha'aviv.  During the long winter months it looks like nothing is alive, nothing can grow, but then suddenly the weather changes, the trees are blossoming and we can say birkat ha'ilanot, and the flowers and grass start sprouting again.  These winter months were a necessary preparatory step to allow things to bloom again; just because nothing was visible on the surface does not mean nothing was taking place.  So too in life, there are periods when we feel like we are stagnating and in a funk and not progressing, but these are just passing winters, and a new spring will eventually arrive.  This is the lesson of galus Mitzrayim, where it seemed we had sunk to irredeemable levels, but suddenly geulah happened and we blossomed forth as a nation. 

I would add the words of the Midrash Rabbah (Braishis 10:6):

 אָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן אֵין לְךָ כָּל עֵשֶׂב וְעֵשֶׂב, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַזָּל בָּרָקִיעַ שֶׁמַּכֶּה אוֹתוֹ, וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ גְּדַל

It is Shabbos haGadol.  Throughout the year we may be unaware of that malach standing above and may not hear the whisper commanding  גְּדַל.  This Shabbos, this time of year, all of us hear it's call.

But it is not just a whisper.  מַּכֶּה אוֹתוֹ**, וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ גְּדַל**.  Growth is hard and growth can be painful.  That is true for us as individuals and true for us as a nation.  But grow we must.

Why is this shabbos called Shabbos haGadol?

In Parshas Braishis we read (1:16) that Hashem made אֶת⁠־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים, but then the pasuk continues and tells us  that there is    אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה.  Rashi comments:

  שוים נבראו, ונתמעטה הלבנה על ידי שקיטרגה ואמרה: אי איפשר לשני מלכים שישתמשו בכתר אחד.  

The Kozhiglover explains that the difference between the sun and the moon is not merely a matter of size, but rather lies in the fact that the sun gives light, but the moon merely reflects light.  The gemara in Bava Metziya (12b) tells us  גדול וסמוך על שלחן אביו זהו קטן קטן ואינו סמוך על שלחן אביו זהו גדול  A gadol gives; a katan receives.  Similarly the gemara in Nedarim (24a) writes that a neder made to force someone to reciprocate a gift is taken seriously because the noder might be thinking  לאו מלכא אנא דמהנינא לך ואת לא מהנית לי .  I don't want to be like a melech, as a melech gives without taking in return.  The moon argued that there could not be two melachim, two gedolim, two bodies that give off light independent of each other.  As a result, it became a katan.  It no longer is able to give off light, only to receive and reflect it.

The masechta in shas dedicated to the laws of chol ha'moed is called Moed Katan.  Chol haMoed receives its kedusha from the days of Y"T that precede and come after it.  These days are the sibah for its issurim; chol ha'moed merely reflects their light.  The Kozhiglover explains that the machlokes whether to put in tefillin on chol ha'moed revolves around this point: do we look at the fact that it has no independent kedusha apart from that which comes from the days of Y"T that surround it and therefore treat it like chol, or do we say that sof sof the fact that it reflects that light of Y"T is enough to push of tefillin. 

This is also the difference between Eretz Yisrael and chutz la'aretz.  Ramban famously writes in P Acharei Mos that mitzvos should in theory only apply in Eretz Yisrael, but in chu"l we do them in order to keep in practice.  Eretz Yisrael is the source of light; chu"l merely reflects what Hashem channels through Eretz Yisrael.

Pesach is the first of the regalim and is called a day of shabbos (the omer is brought "mi'macharas ha'shabbos"), but there is a source of light even greater than itself.  Shabbos is תחילה למקראי קודשׁ, it is the primal source, the source from which springs the kedusha of all the other Moadim of the year, the first of which is Chag haPesach.  This is why our shabbos is called Shabbos haGadol.  It is the well from which Pesach and the other Moadim all draw, the source of the kedusha that we will IY"H receive and grow from in the upcoming week.

ra'uy l'chimutz -- siman or sibah

Last week I mentioned the Rogatchover's chakira whether the simanei kashrus of an animal are a siman or a sibah, i.e. is it the actual presence of simanim that make the animal kosher, or are the simanim just a means of identifying what species an animal belongs to, and it is being a member of a kosher species that makes the animal kosher.  Nafka mina: what if you have a member of a kosher species that lacks simanin?  What if you genetically engineer a non-kosher species so that it does have simanin?  

Since it's shloshim yom kodem ha'chag, let's use the same chakira in hil chametz u'matzah.  The Mishna (Pes 35) lists 5 species of grain that can be used to make matzah.  The gemara explains that only grain which can potentially become chamtez is acceptable.  Yesh lachkor: is this quality of being ראוי לחימוץ a siman to identify whether a grain is one of the 5 acceptable species, or is it the sibah that makes that particular grain usable for matzah?

There is a safeik of the MG"A that may reflect the 2 sides of this chakira.  Rashi holds that one can use the shell of the grain, סובּין, in order to make matzah.  (We don't pasken this way.)  The MG"A (OC 454:1) writes:

סובין. פירש"י קליפת חיטים הנושרים בשעת כתישה ומורסן הנשאר בנפה ע"ש מוכח קצת דבא לידי חימוץ מדיוצאין בהם י"ח מצה לדעת רש"י ואפשר לומ' כיון שהוא ממין הבא לידי חימוץ יוצא בה י"ח

Does Rashi mean that סובּין can actually become chameitz, or does Rashi just mean that סובּין are part of a species of grain that can become chameitz?  

Lichorah the safeik of the MG"A is this issue of siman vs sibah. If ראוי לחימוץ is the sibah that makes something usable for matzah, then סובּין must themselves be capable of becoming chametz.  If ראוי לחימוץ is just a siman, a way to identify whether a grain belongs to one of the 5 acceptable species, than even if סובּין never turn into chametz, it doesn't matter, since we know that סובּין are a byproduct of wheat, which is one of the 5 acceptable species.  (See Shu"T L'Horos Noson vol 14 #25) 

aim high!

The Sifsei Tzadik writes that just like we have 4 minim on Sukkos that correspond to four types of Jews, i.e those that have Torah+mitzvos, those that have only Torah, those that only do mitzvos, and those that have nothing, so too the fours cups on Pesach and the 4 leshonos of geulah correspond to the same.  We say in davening every day that Hashem is "zocheir chasdei Avos" and will bring "go'el l'vnei bneihem."  Three Avos, three different qualities, three midos, all of which warrant bringing redemption to Klal Yisrael.  But there are 4 cups and not three.  Moshe added the dimension of geulah even for those that have nothing, no merits at all.  That is what we celebrate on leil ha'seder.

We say just before the second cup:

הוֹצִיאָנוּ מֵעַבְדוּת לְחֵרוּת מִיָּגוֹן לְשִׂמְחָה, וּמֵאֵבֶל לְיוֹם טוֹב, וּמֵאֲפֵלָה לְאוֹר גָּדוֹל, וּמִשִּׁעְבּוּד לִגְאֻלָּה

It sounds very repetitive.

I saw quoted from the Noam Elimelech that the geulah effected each person on his/her own level.

For some people, being in Egypt meant suffering the pains of physical toil.  The geulah they looked forward to was simply getting a pass from having to work.  This is a redemption מִשִּׁעְבּוּד.  

Some people recognized that there was more to it than that.  For them freedom was an ideal, a value, something beyond simply being an escape from physical bondage.  This is a redemption of מֵעַבְדוּת לְחֵרוּת.  

And finally, there are those who recognized that even that did not fully capture fully what geulah meant.  Geulah was more than a physical escape, more than an ideal, but it was able renewing a bond with G-d and being able to serve him.  This is the redemption מֵאֲפֵלָה לְאוֹר גָּדוֹל.

The first commandment of aseres ha'dibros is "Anochi Hashem Elokecha asher hotzeisicha..." -- "...that took YOU out from Egypt," in the singular.  

Noam Elimelech writes in P' Yisro:

אך נראה בהקדים לפרש פסוק "אני ה' אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים", ופירשו אשר נאמר "הוצאתיך" לשון יחיד. ולענ"ד נראה, דהנה בהיותם תחת שעבוד מצרים לא היה דעת כולם שוה כנ"ל, וזהו "אשר הוצאתיך" לשון יחיד כנ"ל, לכל אחד ואחד היה הגאולה לפי דעתו ומדריגת

Wherever YOU were holding -- whether it was just wanted to escape the pain of work, whether it was the ideal of freedom that inspired you, or whether it was the longing for Hashem's presence -- Hashem brought redepmtion on that level.

And so the question we have to ask ourselves on Pesach is not whether or not we will feel the redemption, as we all know that בְּכָל־דּוֹר וָדוֹר חַיָּב אָדָם לִרְאוֹת אֶת־עַצְמוֹ כְּאִלּוּ הוּא יָצָא מִמִּצְרַיִם and undoubtedly we will try to achieve that to some measure in our seder.  

The question we have to ask ourselves is what type of redemption we will feel and aspire to.  

Is escaping the שִּׁעְבּוּד if our day to day drudgery all we care about, in which case we are yotzei with our vacation in Cancun?

Or maybe, even if we are not social justice warriors, we are bothered by the injustice, inequality, and unfairness that has corrupted our entire society, the failure to have חֵרוּת because of economic, social, and political bonds that hold us back?  That's a madreiga too. 

Or maybe we can aim even higher, and feel the pain of being seperated from G-d, and yearn to bridge that chasm.  

אֲשֶׁ֧ר הוֹצֵאתִ֛יךָ - in the singular.  Whatever we aspire to, that is what the chag will give us in return.  So aim high.

the first thanksgiving

My son posted the following question:

Rav Chaim explains that the Rambam not count the mitzvah of mentioning yitziat mitzraim on a daily basis in his count of the mitzvot because the Rambam says (Sefer HaMitzvot shoresh 3) that only mitzvot that apply forever are counted as mitzvot. When it comes to remembering yitziat Mitzraim, the Rambam rules like Ben Zoma that כל ימי חייך comes to include the night, not the times of Moshiach, when the miracles that will happen then will overshadow everything that came previously.  If that is the case, why is the mitzvah of sippur yitzias mitzraim counted as a mitzvah?  Why will it be still apply in the times of Moshiach and not be overshadowed by the great miracles that will occur then?  

My reply was that the Rambam includes in the mitzvah of sipur (Sh"M 157) not just telling the story of what happened, but "l'hodos al kol ha'tov she'gimalanu," to thank Hashem.  Pesach is the original Thanksgiving!  

You see this in the connection made by Rishonim (Rosh) between matzos of leil ha'seder and the 3 types of matzah offered with the korban todah.

You see this in the shitas Rama that hallel on seder night must be completed before chatzos.  R' Soloveitchik explained that hallel of leil ha'seder is part of the mitzvah of sipur and therefore must conform to the time boundary of the mitzvah of sipur, which is chatzos.  

The Maharal makes the same point, quoting the gemara (Meg 18) that darshens  דא"ר אלעזר מאי דכתיב (תהלים קו, ב) מי ימלל גבורות ה' ישמיע כל תהלתו למי נאה למלל גבורות ה' למי שיכול להשמיע כל תהלתו אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן המספר בשבחו של הקב"ה יותר מדאי נעקר מן העולם שנאמר (איוב לז, כ) היסופר לו כי אדבר אם אמר איש כי יבלע.  A person is not allowed to add extra praises of Hashem to his brachos because a person can never exhaust all the praise Hashem should receive.  Therefore, we just say what Anshei Knesset HaGedolah instituted and allowed for us to say, no more and no less.  How then can we say on Pesach night that  "kol hamarbeh harei zeh meshubach?"  

Maharal answers that there is a difference between offering praise and offering thanks.  If we take the initiative and try to offer praise to Hashem on the level that He deserves, we will never be able to say enough.  But if Hashem has given us something and we are coming to express our thanks, to stop short of attempting to say all we can would be a mark of ingratitude and selfishness, kafuy tovah.  The mitzvah of siupr is not one of praise, but one of thanks.

Therefore, while in the days of Moshiach there may be other miracles that we have uppermost in our minds and that we express our praise of Hashem for, when it comes to giving thanks, when it comes to sipur, we can never forget and never exhaust the words of gratitude that we owe.

a new reason why Shabbos ha'Gadol is called by that name

When we are introduced to Avraham Avinu in Lech Lecha, Hashem promised him  וְאֶֽעֶשְׂךָ֙ לְג֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל.  That promise would be realized through experiencing the Egyptian bondage.  When Yaakov is on his way down to Egypt (46:3), Hashem appeared and told him אל תירא מרדה מצרימה כי לגוי גדול אשימך שם.  What makes a גוי גדול?  The Torah tells us later in Devarim (4:8)    ומי גוי גדול אשר לו חקים ומשפטים צדיקם ככל התורה הזאת. A ג֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל means a nation that stands out in its spiritual, religious, moral commitment.  Therefore, the Shabbos when Bn"Y is given its first mitzvah, to take a korban pesach, is called "Shabbos haGadol." This is our inauguration into becoming a people dedicated to mitzvos.  

The Sefas Emes (5652) develops this theme further in a beautiful piece, but I would like to suggest a different spin.  We find that word גָּד֔וֹל used elsewhere:  פְּנ֣וּ׀ וּסְע֣וּ לָכֶ֗ם וּבֹ֨אוּ הַ֥ר הָֽאֱמֹרִי֮ וְאֶל־כׇּל־שְׁכֵנָיו֒ בָּעֲרָבָ֥ה בָהָ֛ר וּבַשְּׁפֵלָ֥ה וּבַנֶּ֖גֶב וּבְח֣וֹף הַיָּ֑ם אֶ֤רֶץ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ וְהַלְּבָנ֔וֹן עַד־הַנָּהָ֥ר הַגָּדֹ֖ל נְהַר־פְּרָֽת (Devarim 1:7)  Why is Pras called הַנָּהָ֥ר הַגָּדֹ֖ל?  Rashi there explains that it is because Pras is mentioned in context and in connection with Eretz Yisrael.   מפני שנזכר עם ארץ ישראל, קורהו גדול.  

The context of the promise of אֶֽעֶשְׂךָ֙ לְג֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל is Avraham being told in Lech Lecha to leave his homeland and go to Canaan/Eretz Yisrael.  It's developing that that connection to Eretz Yisrael which is what will make him into a ג֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל because, as Rashi tells us, gadlus comes through connecting with our homeland.

We find this connection elsewhere.  Simple pshat in the pasuk in Yehoshua (14:15)  וְשֵׁ֨ם חֶבְר֤וֹן לְפָנִים֙ קִרְיַ֣ת אַרְבַּ֔ע הָאָדָ֧ם הַגָּד֛וֹל בָּעֲנָקִ֖ים ה֑וּא וְהָאָ֥רֶץ שָֽׁקְטָ֖ה מִמִּלְחָמָֽה is that there was a man named "Arba" who was a big giant, הָאָדָ֧ם הַגָּד֛וֹל בָּעֲנָקִ֖ים, and lived in Chevron.  However, if you look in the Midrash (e.g. see Yalkut Shimoni) you will find that Chazal associate הָאָדָ֧ם הַגָּד֛וֹל בָּעֲנָקִ֖ים with Avraham Avinu. Aside from the derash reasons given, I would suggest that Avraham deserves this title particularly in connection with Chevron because that is where Avraham made the first purchase of land in Eretz Yisrael.   

Perhaps this is also the meaning of the promise made in bris bein ha'besarm, where Avraham is told (15:14) אַחֲרֵי־כֵ֥ן יֵצְא֖וּ בִּרְכֻ֥שׁ גָּדֽוֹל.  The רְכֻ֥שׁ גָּדֽוֹל that we were supposed to look forward to is the return to Eretz Yisrael.  

After introducing the halachos of korban pesach, the Torah tells us  וְהָיָ֞ה כִּֽי־תָבֹ֣אוּ אֶל־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִתֵּ֧ן ה׳ לָכֶ֖ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר דִּבֵּ֑ר וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הָעֲבֹדָ֥ה הַזֹּֽאת.  The parsha is reiterating the promise of return to Eretz Yisrael, the land of the Avos, and telling us that it is there that we will continue our future avodah.  In fact, according to the Targum Yonasan, the "kanfei nesharim" that the Torah later speaks of refers to Bn"Y magically being transported on the seder night in Mitzrayim to Yerushalayim to offer their korban pesach there.

My suggestion is that Shabbos haGadol is given that name because the command to offer korban pesach anticipates our return to Eretz Yisrael, the renewal the avodah of the Avos in out homeland.

an incomplete calling

1) The command to take the korban pesach was given on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, even though nothing had to be done until the 10th.  Shem m'Shmuel explains that the 10 days from R"Ch until the 10th are like the aseres ymei teshuvah.  You don't jump into Yom Kippur without preparing yourself in advance.  So too when it comes to taking the korban pesach.   מִֽשְׁכ֗וּ וּקְח֨וּ לָכֶ֥ם צֹ֛אן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתֵיכֶ֖ם וְשַׁחֲט֥וּ הַפָּֽסַח׃ (12:21) Chazal darshen  רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, מִשְׁכוּ יְדֵיכֶם מֵעֲבֹדַת אֶלִילִים וְהִדַּבְּקוּ בַּמִּצְוֹת.  Cleansing oneself from avodah zarah takes time and effort.  Even though we no longer have a korban pesach, we still need to take advantage of the time period. 

2) Mountains of derush have been written on the fact that the aleph in VaYikra is small.  The Zohar (quoted by R' Tzuriel here ) writes that the letter is small because the revelation of Hashem here took place outside Eretz Yisrael and therefore lacked completeness.  

Tzror haMor similarly writes:

למה אלף זעירא לפי שכבוד הש״י וקדושתו הוא בארץ ישראל לפי שהיא ארץ קדושה. וכשהוצרך לצאת מהיכלו ולילך חוצה לארץ כביכול הוא ממעט כבודו. ולכן נכתב ויקרא באלף זעירא.

This approach helps deal with a pshat question Ramban and Seforno are bothered by.  וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר ה׳ אֵלָ֔יו מֵאֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵ֖ד - why the stress on Ohel Moed?   They explain that Hashem called to Moshe here because when Moshe saw the cloud of Hashem's presence enveloping the Mishkan, he was hesitant to enter.  However, according to the Zohar and the Tzror haMor maybe the stress is on Ohel Moed is because the it's the fact that the revelation took place there as opposed to Eretz Yisrael that makes the aleph small.

I would add that al derech derush we can explain based on this why it is that davka here the aleph is small.  Why not earlier, e.g. by the sneh (Shmos 3:4), where we have  וַיִּקְרָא֩ אֵלָ֨יו אֱלֹקים מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַסְּנֶ֗ה, or by mattan Torah, where we read (19:3) וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֵלָ֤יו ה׳ מִן־הָהָ֣ר?  

Rambam paskens in Hil Melachim (9:5) אסור לצאת מארץ ישראל לחוצה לארץ לעולם. אלא ללמוד תורה או לישא אשה או להציל מן העכו"ם ויחזור לארץ   Hashem's appearance by the sneh was להציל מן העכו"ם, to save Bn"Y from Pharoah's oppression.  Hashem's appearance by Har Sinai was ללמוד תורה.  These are justifiable reasons for leaving Eretz Yisrael, and therefore there was no miyut of kavod Shamayim in going out.  However, when it comes to the korbanos of the mishkan, korbanos which are offered primarily because we messed up and need a kaparah, then there is a miyut of kavod Shamayim for Hashem to come out to chu"l to deal with it.

We are all "called" upon to work on our avodas Hashem.  How many of us even realize how that calling from Hashem is diminished by virtue of our remaining in chu"l?

3) Rashi writes:

 לכל דברות ולכל אמירות ולכל ציווים קדמה קריאה, זו לשון חיבה, לשון שמלאכי השרת משמשין בו: וקרא זה אל זה (ישעיהו ו׳:ג׳). אבל לנביאי אומות העולם נגלה עליהם בלשון גנאי ועראי, בלשון טומאה: ויקר אלהים אל בלעם

We understand that the revelation to Bilam was temporary,גנאי ועראי, but what proof is there that it is לשון טומאה? Why is the fact that it is temporary necessarily something bad?  Mizrachi and others suggest that Rashi is a play on words: יקר has the same letters as קרי.  

Rav Shteinman in Ayales haShachar explains that when Hashem appears to a person, that individual needs to seize the opportunity and grow from it.  The experience has to inspire meaningful, permanent change.  If the person sees it only as a one off,  גנאי ועראי, something temporary here today and gone tomorrow, that itself by definition is טומאה, a negative.  

See his second explanation here as well.

4) My wife told me about this product, which appears to simply be masking tape that has the word chameitz printed on it, that she saw in a store, and at first I thought she was joking, but she wasn't.  Amazon does not list the price, but my wife thinks it was around $11 locally.  

Let that sink in.  $11 for a role of tape.  

Have we reached peak Pesach madness yet?  

k'zayis is not just a shiur achila

The shiur for mitzvos and issurim that entail achila is a k'zayis, as ain achila p'chusa mi'kzayis.  However, in truth the shiur k'zayis is not just a din in achila, but is the baseline shiur for all mitzvos/issurim until proven otherwise.

The first Mishna in Beitzah has a machlokes Beis Hillel and B"Sh whether the shiur bal yeira'eh and bal yimatzei for chamtez is k'zayis, like se'or, or whether the shiur is larger.  The gemara explains B"Sh:

מאי טעמייהו דב"ש א"כ לכתוב רחמנא חמץ ולא בעי שאור ואנא אמינא ומה חמץ שאין חמוצו קשה בכזית שאור שחמוצו קשה לא כל שכן שאור דכתב רחמנא למה לי לומר לך שיעורו של זה לא כשיעורו של זה

Meaning, all things being equal, you would assume the shiur is k'zayis. 

Why?  If the only reason the shiur achila is a k'zayis is because ain achila p'chusa mi'kzayis, what does that have to do with bal yeira'eh and bal yimatzei?  

QED that k'zayis is a baseline shiur, not just a shiur of achila.

See Minchas Chinuch 89 who points out the same with respect to the issur of lo tischat al chameitz dam zivchi being k'zayis.

lomdus: maror and bracha on a partial mitzvah

1) Rosh writes that we eat a k'zayis maror because we say a bracha of "al achilas maror" and the shiur achila is a k'zayis.  Shaagas Aryeh asks why the Rosh needs to use the nusach of the bracha to prove his case.  Why doesn't he just say that since the mitzvah is to eat and achila=k'zayis, that must be the shiur?  

R' Hershel Shachter in his Eretz Tzvi suggests that the mitzvah of maror is not a mitzvah of achila, but is a mitzvah of making a zecher l'mikdash to the maror that was eaten with the korban pesach; therefore, absent the nusach ha'bracha, maybe a k'zayis would not be required.

(See Aruch haShulchan 477:3 -- 

מיהו בשני בני אדם שאין להם רק כזית אחד מצה, נראה דמוטב שיאכל אחד מהם כזית ויקיים המצוה כתיקונו, משיאכל כל אחד חצי זית. וכיצד יעשו יטילו גורל.

וזה פשוט שאם יש להם שני זיתים – יאכל כל אחד כזית ל"המוציא" שהיא עיקר המצוה, ולא יאכלו אפיקומן שהוא לזכר בעלמא. ואם יש להם שלושה זיתים – יאכל כל אחד כזית ל"המוציא", והכזית השלישי יחלקו ביניהם לאפיקומן, דלזכר די בחצי זית בשעת הדחק.)

I am not so sure this chiddush fits the shitas haRambam (Ch"M 7:8):

בזמן הזה שאין שם קרבן אחר שמברך המוציא לחם חוזר ומברך על אכילת מצה. ומטבל מצה בחרוסת ואוכל. וחוזר ומברך על אכילת מרור ומטבל מרור בחרוסת ואוכל. ולא ישהה אותו בחרוסת שמא יבטל טעמו. וזו מצוה מדברי סופרים. וחוזר וכורך מצה ומרור ומטבל בחרוסת ואוכלן בלא ברכה זכר למקדש.

Notice that the Rambam calls maror מצוה מדברי סופרים but calls koreich  זכר למקדש.  Seems to be two different gedarim.

2) The Brisker Rav is quoted as explaining that the Rosh holds that there is in fact no independent chiyuv of eating a k'zayis of maror even when there is a beis ha'mikdash.  The mitzvah is "al matzos u'merorim yochluhu," to eat the korban pesach with side dishes of matzah and maror.  

Rambam paskens (7:6):

 ואחר כך כורך מצה ומרור כאחת ומטבל בחרוסת ומברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על אכילת מצות ומרורים ואוכלן. ואם אכל מצה בפני עצמה ומרור בפני עצמו מברך על זה בפני עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו

According to the Brisker Rav, it comes out that even though there is no mitzvah of achilas maror in its own right -- it is just part of the larger mitzvah of "al matzos u'merorim yochluhu" -- one can still recite a bracha on achilas maror.  We see from here that you can recite a bracha on what is only a partial mitzvah.

Birchas Avraham brings two additional proofs to this idea:

a) Tos and BH"G have a machlokes whether you can continue counting sefira if you miss counting one day.  Minchas Chinuch explains that the issue hinges on whether the 49 days of sefira are one mitzvah, in which case if you miss a day you are done, or whether they are 49 independent mitzvos, each day a mitzvah in its own right.

Even though BH"G holds all 49 days are one big mitzvah, we still recite a bracha on counting each individual day, on each part of the mitzvah.

b) If you say the bracha "al netilas lulav" and then pick up the 4 minim each one at a time, you are yotzei.  Rama in Hil Sukka (651:12) writes that if you interrupt in the middle, you would recite a new bracha on whatever min you have left to pick up, e.g. if you picked up 3 of the minim and then interrupted what you were doing before picking up the aravos, you would say a bracha of "al netilas aravah."  Even though the 4 minim are one mitzvah, you can say a bracha on doing part of the mitzvah independently.

I would add one additional case to this discussion.

c) R' Akiva Eiger (Tinyana 13) has a safeik whether one can still recite the brachos on ner chanukah if one remembered to do so only in the middle of lighting.  Many explain the nekudas ha'safeik revolves around whether the additional candles lit for the sake of hidur are part of the mitzvah of hadlaka or whether hidur is its own kiyum.  

Even if hidur is not an independent kiyum but is part of the mitzvah of hadlaka, I would think that it is at best a partial kiyum hamitzvah.  RAK"E must assume, like these other sources indicate, that one may recite a bracha on a partial kiyum.

Iyar - the month of vav hachibur

1) Why could Aharon enter the kodesh kodashing only on Y"K?  B'makom she'baalei teshuvah omdim afilu tzadikim ainam yecholim laamod.  On Y"K, we are baalei teshuvah and can enter places that are off limits even to the greatest tzadikim the rest of the year. (Sefas Emes)

2) I had previously asked why in Dayeinu we say "banah lan es beis ha'bechira" when it is we who did the building -- it did not come down from Hashem.  (Thank you to everyone who responded with suggestions.)

Shir haShirim Rabbah right at the beginning:

יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל אָמַר, כְּתִיב (מלכים א ח׳:י״ג): בָּנֹה בָנִיתִי בֵּית זְבֻל לָךְ, בִּנְיַן בָּנֹה בָּנִיתִי. רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה אָמַר, הַבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ בּוֹנִים, אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא (מלכים א ו׳:ז׳): וְהַבַּיִת בְּהִבָּנֹתוֹ, מֵאֵלָיו הָיָה נִבְנֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלכים א ו׳:ז׳): אֶבֶן שְׁלֵמָה מַסָּע נִבְנָה. בָּנוּי אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא נִבְנָה, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיְתָה הָאֶבֶן נוֹשֵׂאת אֶת עַצְמָהּ וְנִתְּנָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַדִּימוֹס.

Unlike Al Gore and the internet, we did not build it.  The Mikdash built itself miraculously.  We just went through the motions.

3) Sefer Yetzira says the month of Iyar corresponds to the letter vav.  Ain li eisek b'nistaros, but R' Tzadok gives us insight to understand it on some level.  Vav is the vav ha'chibur, the vav which connects.  Nisan is the month where we left Egypt with the goal of taavdun es ha'Elokim al ha'har ha'zeh.  Sivan is when we fulfilled that goal with kabbalas haTorah.  We need some way to connect the start of the process with its fulfillment.  That's Iyar, the vav ha'chibur between the two.

I would suggest as well that we know that this is the month when R' Akiva's students died because they did not treat each other respectfully.  There needs to be a vav ha'chibur between people, better connection between us to create more harmonious relationships.