מגיד - Maggid, Part 1 – Ha Lachma Anya: Why We Begin in Aramaic

The Rebbe continues by discussing whether the mitzvah of v’higadta must specifically be in the form of an answer to someone else, or whether it can be fulfilled even when a person is alone.

According to one version of the Mechilta, the mitzvah applies only “beino l’vein acheirim”—between him and others. That would imply that the mitzvah of telling the story of the Exodus is framed as a response, directed to someone else. According to another version, however, the text reads “beino l’vein atzmo”—even between himself and himself. According to that reading, the mitzvah is not dependent on another person’s question; even when one is alone, there is still a mitzvah to recount the story.

The Rebbe notes that, in the footnotes, he appears to favor the version that reads only “beino l’vein acheirim,” and he points out that this is the version found in the Rambam and in the Mechilta of Rashbi, in the New York 1943 edition. This is unlike the readings cited by the Migdal Oz and Sefer HaMenuchah, which include both “between himself and himself” and “between himself and others.” The Rebbe emphasizes that this is not merely a printing mistake, but a substantive textual issue that affects the understanding of the mitzvah.

He then adds that this version still requires further analysis, because if the mitzvah does not apply when one is alone, then the phrase “between him and others” seems somewhat unnecessary and calls for explanation.

The Rebbe proceeds to list further distinctions between the mitzvah of recounting the Exodus on the night of Pesach and the daily mitzvah of remembering the Exodus.

A fourth difference is that the mitzvah of recounting the Exodus on Pesach night is counted among the 613 mitzvos. The Rebbe notes, however, that Saadia Gaon, the Baal Halachos Gedolos, and Rabbi Shimon ben Gabirol did not count it in their lists of commandments. By contrast, the daily remembrance of the Exodus is not counted among the 613 mitzvos. This distinction carries halachic significance, and the Rebbe refers to discussions in Minchas Chinuch, Tzlach, and Aruch HaShulchan.

A fifth difference is that, according to Ben Zoma, the daily obligation to mention the Exodus does not apply in the Messianic era, but only in the present age. By contrast, the mitzvah of recounting the Exodus on the night of Pesach will continue to apply even in the Messianic era.

A sixth difference is that on the night of Pesach, the mitzvah extends throughout the entire night—or at least until midnight according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah. Thus, even if one already told the story at the beginning of the night, the mitzvah continues. This is unlike the daily remembrance, where once one has mentioned the Exodus, we do not find an additional obligation to continue mentioning it throughout the remainder of the day or night.

The Haggadah then states: “It is a mitzvah upon us to tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt.” On this, the Rebbe relates a teaching from his father-in-law, the Frierdiker Rebbe. When he was a child, his father asked him why no blessing is recited on the mitzvah of recounting the Exodus. He did not know the answer. His father told him that he too had once been asked this by the Rebbe Maharash, who also did not know. The Rebbe Maharash had been asked by the Tzemach Tzedek, who likewise did not know, and he had been asked by the Alter Rebbe. At that time, the Mitteler Rebbe, who was present, answered בשם the Rif that one has already fulfilled the obligation through Kiddush, since Kiddush already mentions the Exodus.

Another answer is brought from the Rashba: since even a brief mention is sufficient, no separate blessing is made. But the Alter Rebbe challenged this answer, because on the night of Pesach the mitzvah is not merely to mention the Exodus, but to tell it in narrative form. He therefore offered a different explanation: it is similar to Birchas HaMazon, where we do not make a separate blessing on the blessing itself. Since the Haggadah is itself composed of praise and blessings, we do not institute another blessing over it.

The flow of the Rebbe’s explanation suggests that although a number of reasons are initially offered for why there is no blessing, some of those reasons become less satisfactory once we distinguish between the ordinary daily remembrance and the special mitzvah of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim on Pesach night. In the end, the strongest answer is that we do not establish a blessing over something that is itself fundamentally praise and blessing.

The Haggadah then says: “And whoever increases in telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt is praiseworthy.” The Rebbe notes that this includes even groups who were not enslaved in the same way, such as Kohanim and Levi’im. The proof is from the story of the sages in Bnei Brak: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua were Levi’im, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah and Rabbi Tarfon were Kohanim, and Rabbi Akiva descended from converts. Even so, they all participated in the mitzvah of recounting the Exodus. Thus, “whoever increases” truly includes everyone.

The Haggadah continues: “It happened that Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Tarfon were reclining in Bnei Brak, and they were telling the story of the Exodus all that night, until their students came and said: Our teachers, the time has arrived for reciting the morning Shema.”

The Rebbe notes that this account already appears in the Haggadah of Rav Amram Gaon and is cited by Tosafos. He points out, however, that he has not found this exact story in a Midrash. In the Tosefta, at the end of the tenth chapter of Pesachim, there is a similar account, but there the setting is Rabban Gamliel in Lod, and the subject is the laws of Pesach rather than the narrative of the Exodus. This is not the same as our story.

It may be that the Haggadah chose this particular story because it highlights the inclusive point mentioned earlier: even Kohanim, Levi’im, and converts are obligated in sippur yetzias Mitzrayim.

The Rebbe then discusses the order in which the sages are listed. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah is mentioned before Rabbi Akiva because he came from distinguished lineage and served as Nasi. One might still ask why Rabbi Akiva is mentioned before Rabbi Tarfon, since Rabbi Tarfon was his teacher. Tosafos explains that since the event took place in Bnei Brak, Rabbi Akiva, who was the local authority there, is mentioned first.

Still, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua precede him, since they were his teachers. Rabbi Tarfon, although technically his teacher as well, later stood more as his colleague. Other commentators explain that the order reflects the physical seating arrangement at the table: the most distinguished sage sat in the middle, the next two above him, and the remaining two below him. According to this interpretation, the Haggadah lists them in the order in which they reclined.

The Haggadah specifically mentions Bnei Brak because that location helps explain the order of names, especially why Rabbi Akiva appears before Rabbi Tarfon. By contrast, the story in the Tosefta mentions Lod in order to teach that even after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, when no Korban Pesach was being offered, the sages still spent the entire night occupied with the laws of Pesach.

The phrase “all that night” is also significant. Even Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who hold that the Korban Pesach may be eaten only until midnight, nevertheless remained engaged in the mitzvah throughout the entire night.

The next passage is: “Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: Behold, I am like a man of seventy years, and I did not merit to understand why the Exodus from Egypt should be mentioned at night, until Ben Zoma expounded it.”

This teaching comes from the Mishnah in Berachos. Some versions of the Yerushalmi read: “Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said to them,” which would connect it directly to the gathering in Bnei Brak. Even according to our text, it fits naturally here, because it continues the discussion of recounting and remembering the Exodus.

The phrase “I am like a man of seventy years” does not mean that he was actually seventy. Rather, his hair turned white when he was appointed Nasi. At that time he was only eighteen years old, or sixteen according to the Yerushalmi, and according to another opinion only thirteen. The meaning, then, is that although he appeared elderly and had engaged deeply with the sages, he still had not found a scriptural proof for the nighttime obligation until Ben Zoma supplied one.

Ben Zoma derived it from the verse: “So that you shall remember the day you left Egypt all the days of your life.” “The days of your life” teaches the obligation by day; “all the days of your life” comes to include the nights. The Rebbe notes that in one manuscript the wording is simply that the word “all” includes the nights, and that in other places as well it is usually the word “all” that serves as the inclusive term.

The sages disagree and say: “The days of your life” refers to this world; “all the days of your life” includes the days of Mashiach. Some explain that they disagree with Ben Zoma entirely and do not derive the nighttime obligation in the same way. Others explain that they agree regarding the nighttime obligation, but add that the word “all” also includes the Messianic era. Even according to that interpretation, there remains a conceptual difference: according to Ben Zoma, there are two distinct obligations—one by day and one by night—whereas according to the sages it is one broad obligation spanning both.

The Haggadah then introduces a new section: “Blessed is the Omnipresent, blessed is He; blessed is He who gave the Torah to His people Israel, blessed is He. The Torah speaks of four sons: one wise, one wicked, one simple, and one who does not know how to ask.”

The phrase “Blessed is the Omnipresent” is the text found in the Siddur. The Rebbe explains that this introduction resembles the way one begins an exposition by invoking the Name of Hashem. There are four expressions of “Baruch” here, corresponding to the four verses in the Torah from which the mitzvah of telling the story is derived. Although no formal blessing was instituted on the mitzvah, because of its preciousness these four “Baruch” statements serve as a kind of allusion.

Hashem is called “HaMakom” because He is the place of the world, while the world is not His place. This follows the well-known teaching based on the verse “Behold, there is a place with Me.”

The discussion of the four sons is based on the Yerushalmi and the Mechilta, and it also appears in the Haggadah of the Rambam and in other siddurim. The Yerushalmi uses the term “tipesh” rather than “tam,” and there are other textual differences as well.

The order of the sons does not follow the order of the verses in the Torah. Rather, they are arranged by level of wisdom: first the wise son, then the wicked son—who is also intelligent, but directs his intelligence negatively—then the simple son, and finally the one who does not know how to ask.

The wise son asks: “What are the testimonies, statutes, and laws that Hashem our God commanded you?” One should answer him by teaching the laws of Pesach thoroughly, until the final halachah that nothing is eaten after the Afikoman.

The Rebbe notes that the wise son reveals his true character through his wording. Although he says “commanded you,” he also says “Hashem our God,” showing that he does not exclude himself from the community. In the Yerushalmi and in the Rambam, the wording is actually “commanded us.”

The instruction to answer him with the laws of Pesach means not only to repeat what was already said in the section of “Avadim Hayinu,” but to continue and teach him the detailed halachos, all the way through the last law—that after the Korban Pesach, or in our case the Afikoman, one does not eat dessert.

The wicked son asks: “What is this service to you?” Since he says “to you” and not “to us,” he excludes himself from the community and thereby denies a fundamental principle. Therefore, one must blunt his teeth and say to him: “It is because of this that Hashem did for me when I left Egypt”—for me and not for him. Had he been there, he would not have been redeemed.

The Rebbe notes that the words “because of this” actually come from the verse used for the son who does not know how to ask, but the Haggadah applies them here to the wicked son as well. In the Mechilta, the expression is “for me and not for you.” The Haggadah changes it to the third person—“not for him”—apparently out of sensitivity to those present at the table, so that the wording not be directed too sharply at anyone sitting there.

The simple son asks: “What is this?” and he is answered simply: “With a strong hand Hashem took us out of Egypt, from the house of bondage.”

As for the son who does not know how to ask, the Haggadah says: “You open for him,” as the verse states: “And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: It is because of this that Hashem did for me when I left Egypt.”

The Rebbe comments on the unusual wording “At pesach lo,” using the feminine form “at” rather than “atah.” He explains homiletically that the father’s pain is so great when his child cannot even begin to ask, that his strength becomes weakened, as hinted by the feminine form. This is connected to the interpretation of “at” as an expression of weakened strength. The instruction “open for him” is linked to the verse in Mishlei: “Open your mouth for the mute.”

Summary
This section expands the meaning of sippur yetzias Mitzrayim by contrasting it with daily remembrance, showing that the mitzvah of the Seder night is broader, deeper, and in many ways unique. It then moves from the universal obligation to the diverse ways the Torah speaks to different kinds of children, teaching that the story of redemption must be told in a way each person can receive.

Not only be’derech t’shuva because according to this Mechilta it’s even beino le’vein atzmo. Beino le’vein atzmo means not be’derech t’shuva to somebody’s shayla, so you’re not saying it to anybody. So according to the first Lashon of the Mechilta, it’s only beino le’vein acheirim, which means there has to be somebody else. According to the other girsa, there’s a mitzvah even if there’s nobody else, even beino le’vein atzmo. And that’s the chiluk whether there’s a mitzvah to say it as a response or if it’s a mitzvah just to sippur Yitziat Mitzrayim. That’s what the Rebbe says, it depends. It’s possible it depends on the two girsaos in the Mechilta, whether it’s necessary to respond as a response to someone.

Now the first girsa that the Rebbe quotes from the Mechilta—beino le’vein acheirim minayin—the Rebbe puts in the hosafos acharei zman. He says that this nusach of beino le’vein acheirim is like it is in the Sefer HaRambam and the Mechilta d’Rashbi, which is Kasher New York 5703. That’s their nusach. And this is not like the Migdal Oz and the Sefer HaMenucha in which it is written, like further in the Mechilta d’Rashbi, which mentions them over there.

So if I understand correctly what the Rebbe in the hosafos acharei zman is saying, that this first girsa that he’s bringing over here, that it says only beino le’vein acheirim without beino le’vein atzmo, the Rebbe tries to say this is the correct girsa. And he says this girsa is like in the Sefer HaRambam and also in the Mechilta d’Rashbi that is not the one the Rebbe quotes later on, but I guess from Kasher New York 5703, in this he quotes it this way. And that is not like the Migdal Oz and the Sefer HaMenucha. They write not beino le’vein acheirim, but they say beino le’vein atzmo u’beino le’vein acheirim, like it’s quoted further from the Mechilta d’Rashbi that he mentions them over there.

I think "mazkiram" means that Kasher in New York mentions the Migdal Oz and the Sefer HaMenucha. So it’s not like the Migdal Oz that he mentions there. And he says it’s almost to say that this is a mistake in the printing in the Sefer HaRambam and the Mechilta d’Rashbi, that he says that this is a mistake and it’s also over here, it’s not supposed to say just beino le’vein acheirim, it’s supposed to say beino le’vein atzmo also. And it’s a mistake in the printing. So the Rebbe says no, it’s not a mistake in the printing but it only has to say beino le’vein acheirim, and this is because it has to be in the way of a response.

And then the next footnote is on "beino le’vein acheirim." He says for this girsa, after "beino le’vein atzmo," "beino le’vein acheirim" would be extra. So it should say beino le’vein acheirim and then beino le’vein atzmo. So the girsa still needs to be looked into further exactly what the Rebbe is saying over here.

Number four: that Sippur Yitziat Mitzrayim of Pesach is counted among the mitzvos, the 613 mitzvos, as mentioned before. And the Rebbe says in the parentheses just to point out that the Saadia Gaon, the Baal Halachos Gedolos, and Rabbi Solomon ibn Gabirol did not count it in the count of the 613 that they bring down. Look in this in the explanation of Sefer HaMitzvos to Saadia Gaon, the 33rd mitzvah.

However, the mentioning of every day is not counted as one of the mitzvos. So what difference does it make? It makes a difference in the law, whether it’s part of the 613 mitzvos or not. It makes a difference—look in the Minchas Chinuch there, in the Tzlach Brachos there, and the Aruch Hashulchan Orach Chayim at the end of Siman 67 and onwards.

A fifth difference is that the mentioning of every day is not for the days of Moshiach. When Moshiach comes, then there's not going to be a mitzvah to mention it every day according to Ben Zoma (Brachos 12b). And according to many codifiers, look also in the Mishna there, the halakha is like him. So there's a difference, that Yitziat Mitzrayim however is a mitzvah even in the times of Moshiach.

Sixth: on the night of Pesach, the mitzvah is throughout the entire night, or until midnight according to Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. So even if you already told it at the beginning of the night, there’s still a mitzvah throughout the whole night. As opposed to every day, if you mention it once, we don’t find a mitzvah even from the Rabbis to mention it further. And then it needs further study.

"Mitzvah aleinu l’saper be’Yitziat Mitzrayim," quoting from the Haggadah. My father-in-law, the Rebbe, related: When I was a child, my father asked me: why don't we make a blessing on telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt? And I didn’t know. And he told me that he too was asked this by his father, who is the Rebbe Maharash, and he didn’t know. And his father told him that he too was asked this question by his father, which is the Tzemach Tzedek, and he didn’t know the answer. And his father told him that he too was asked about this from his grandfather, the Alter Rebbe, and he didn't know. And his uncle, the Mitteler Rebbe, who was at that time when his grandfather asked him, responded with the opinion of the Rif: because he has already fulfilled the obligation with the blessing of Kiddush that mentions the Exodus from Egypt.

And there is an answer from the Rashba: that just any mention of the remembrance is sufficient. And the Alter Rebbe asked about this: because on the night of Pesach there needs to be a narration and a story more than just mentioning it. And he answered: like we don’t make a blessing on Birkat Hamazon to make a blessing on Birkat Hamazon because it’s a duplicate blessing—to make a blessing for a blessing.

It looks like from the continuation of the words that first the Rebbe addresses why don’t we make a blessing on this mitzvah, he brings several reasons. And then he says what’s the difference between—and then he discusses what’s the difference between this mitzvah and the mitzvah of Yitziat Mitzrayim in general. So because some of the answers to the first question, which is that you just by saying "Zekher l’Yitziat Mitzrayim" and it’s fulfilled in the Krias Shema where you bless before and after, those are negated by the once we start learning about what is the mitzvah of Yitziat Mitzrayim. So we see that according to many it’s not enough just to mention the Exodus from Egypt. That would be mostly for the regular mitzvah of remembering the Exodus from Egypt, not for Pesach night. And that’s summed up by the talk that’s brought down at the end, that the question was why don’t you make the blessing which was addressed right in the beginning. And those answers were some of those answers that were brought down in the beginning, some of them. And because of the next piece that the Rebbe then brings, because of the specialty of the relationship of Yitziat Mitzrayim the way the mitzvah is, that’s part of the answers why it wasn’t accepted. And he answered them the final answer that was brought down also in the beginning because we don't establish a blessing for a blessing, similar to what we said before.

"V’chol hamarbeh," and anyone who increases. So first it says "even if we were all wise," but then it says "and anyone who increases," and even priests and Levites who were not enslaved. All that we are trying to include. Because before it says we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt. But then it says "anyone who increases," even priests and Levites who were not enslaved, and converts. And the proof for this is the story of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, because they were Levites, and as follows, the piece that follows. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah who was a priest, and Rabbi Akiva was a convert. And also Rabbi Tarfon was a priest. This is from the Simchas HaRegel to prove that. Although generally the story of Rabbi Eliezer is coming to tell us also the Rebbe wrote down before "even if we were all wise," the story of Rabbi Eliezer. So in a simple sense, it looks like the Rebbe quoted before the story of Rabbi Eliezer that even the wise are obligated. And Simchas HaRegel brings down that specifically even priests, Levites, and converts are still obligated. But he calls that "all who increase," including in the "all." Instead of saying "and increase in the story of Egypt," it says "and all who increase," so the "all" is adding that.

So the next piece in the Haggadah is the story of Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Joshua, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Tarfon. It happened that Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Joshua, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Tarfon were reclining at a Seder in Bnei Brak and they were discussing the Exodus from Egypt that entire night—the entire night of the Seder—until their students came and said to them: teachers, the time has come for reciting the morning Shema. It means that they were up all night telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt.

So the Rebbe quotes the story of Rabbi Eliezer. He says: this piece already exists in the Seder Haggadah of Rav Amram Gaon, and it is mentioned in Tosafot (Ketubot 105a) and in Avoda Zara (45a). And Tosafot points to the place of the Haggadah of Pesach, and until now I haven't found it in any Midrash. And look in the Tosefta at the end of the tenth chapter of Pesachim, a similar story to this with Rabban Gamliel in Lod, and not with Rabbi Tarfon over here, there is no Rabban Gamliel and this is in Bnei Brak. So Rabban Gamliel in Lod was occupied with the laws of Pesach all night. That’s not the same story as here.

Now without looking in the Tosefta, perhaps this is why he brings in the Haggadah the story of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, not the Tosefta story with Rabban Gamliel in Lod, because he wants to bring out the Priest, Levite, and Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Joshua as mentioned before from the commentaries.

So he quotes here the story with Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Joshua, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Tarfon. So Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah comes before Rabbi Akiva because he was from a distinguished family and a leader (Tosafot Ketubot there). So that’s why Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah comes before Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva was a convert, so he wasn't from a distinguished family and also wasn't a leader. And we can say why Rabbi Akiva comes before Rabbi Tarfon in this story, as Tosafot asks in Avoda Zara 45a. It is because this occurred in Bnei Brak where Rabbi Akiva was the leader of the place (Sanhedrin 32b). And therefore Rabbi Akiva comes before Rabbi Tarfon. And still Rabbi Eleazar comes before him. Even though he was the leader, he still doesn't come before Rabbi Joshua and not before Rabbi Eleazar. Because Rabbi Joshua was Rabbi Akiva’s teacher. As opposed to Rabbi Tarfon, although he was his teacher, but later on he became his friend. We understand well the Gemara in Ketubot 84b, because in the end they became friends (Seder HaDoros).

I guess he doesn't mention why Rabbi Eleazar—Rabbi Eleazar must have been the most important of all of them. Then comes Rabbi Joshua who was Rabbi Akiva's teacher. And then comes Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah who was a leader from a distinguished family. And then comes Rabbi Akiva who was from Bnei Brak. And then comes Rabbi Tarfon.

After a while I found some commentators say the order is based on the saying of our Sages (Berachos 46b and the Tosefta there). The order of reclining is: the greatest in the middle, the one next to him goes above him, and the third one goes below him. And according to this they reclined here as follows: the leader in the middle, that was Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. And then you had Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, the teachers of Rabbi Akiva, above the leader. So they were both next to him. So Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua were sitting above, and then Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon below him. And it mentions them in the Haggadah in the order they were reclining. So the order came out it was Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua above Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, and then Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, then Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon.

This is from the Meir Ayin on the Haggadah of Pesach. "In Bnei Brak"—that's the name of a city (Joshua 19:45). And we can say the reason it mentions the name of the city that it was in Bnei Brak, where according to this we can understand the order why he counts Rabbi Akiva before Rabbi Tarfon. Because even according to the previous answers, still Rabbi Akiva is before Rabbi Tarfon. But if that’s the reason, so then how come we don’t have such a reason by Rabban Gamliel, why would he mention Lod over there? So we are giving now a reason for Lod also. Because that was Rabban Gamliel was during the time of the Temple. But we are trying to say that this thing that was the entire night was not at the time that they brought the Pesach offering because they were in Lod. So that we know is because it was in Lod, and Lod was far from Jerusalem.

"All that night"—they were all night. So the Rebbe brings down that also Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, although they both hold (from the Mechilta, Parshas Bo, Pesachim 120b) each one respectively holds that eating of the Pesach offering is only until midnight. Look in the Imrei Shefer that elaborates on this topic. In the Mechilta, at the end of Parshas Bo, Rabbi Eliezer says one must occupy himself with the laws of Pesach until midnight. So he says with the laws of Pesach until midnight. So he’s saying even Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah that hold that Pesach is only until midnight, still they were occupied all that night.

Now the next piece follows. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah said: "I am like a seventy-year-old man, but I have not yet merited to find a proof from the Torah that in addition to the daytime obligation, you have to mention the Exodus from Egypt also every night, until Ben Zoma explained it." Until today when Ben Zoma demonstrated a proof from the following verse: "that you should remember the day that you left Egypt all the days of your life" (Deuteronomy 16:3). So Ben Zoma explained that if the verse would have merely stated "the days of your life," there would already have been a sufficient proof for a daytime obligation to mention the Exodus. The fact that the verse stresses "all the days of your life" indicates a further obligation to mention the Exodus in the evenings.

So Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah—this is from Berachos 12b and onwards. There are those that have the girsa in Yerushalmi Berachos, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to them. So this would be a follow-up to the previous piece, even according to our version. One could explain that that was during the gathering in Bnei Brak, and then we understand simply why they organized this Mishnah in the Haggadah even though it talks about the third paragraph of the Shema that we say every day. So it’s not specifically related to this night, but it’s in regards to the mentioning of the Exodus from Egypt which is every day, which is other than the narration of the Exodus from Egypt on the night of Pesach. And in this case then that’s why it makes sense. 

In the meantime, the continuation of the Haggadah is they start with "Avadim hayinu," as quoted before "beginning with the disgrace." He says therefore we have to tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt. He brings proof that even the wise and even priests and Levites, everyone has to say it. And then he continues with something that Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah said at that gathering. So what did Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah say? "I am like seventy years old." He was not seventy years old, but he was like sixty. Old age came upon him on the day that they appointed him as a leader, and he was all of eighteen years old (Berachos 28a). According to the Yerushalmi he was sixteen years old. According to the version of the Abudraham he was thirteen years old. But we find this expression "I am like a man of so-and-so years" also in the Mechilta with regards to Rabbi Joshua, "like a man of so-and-so years." What is "like a seventy-year-old man"? It means that I have put in effort with people of wisdom and I didn't merit to know the hint to the obligation for saying it. So although I am like a man of seventy years old, which means I am wise in the wisdom like a seventy-year-old person, still I hadn't had the merit to know the hint for the obligation of this saying of Yitziat Mitzrayim. That’s in the commentary on the Mishnah there.

So either "lo zachiti" means I didn't have the proof to know where we know it from, or "lo zachiti" means I wasn't able to prove that this is actually what it means. Until Ben Zoma said it. Once Ben Zoma said it, he said it from the verse "L’ma’an tizkor." So he says "all the days of your life" to include the nights. In the margins of the manuscript of Minchas HaShas, the girsa is "all" to include the nights. In no other place did I find "all the days of your life" to include the nights. So this is like the source for the Haggadah to say "all the days of your life" to include the nights is something which until now he hasn't found. It’s always "all" to include the nights, but not "all the days of your life" to include the nights.

And then it says, continuing in that discussion in the Gemara, the Sages disagree and they say that "the days of your life" would be sufficient to include the current era. The fact that the verse states "all the days of your life" includes also an obligation to mention the Exodus in the messianic era.

So the Sages disagree with Ben Zoma. They don't hold that you mention the Exodus at night like Ben Zoma does, like Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says. But there are those who explain that the Sages are adding onto Ben Zoma. According to everybody, both Ben Zoma and the Sages mention the Exodus at night. They're just adding that "the days of your life" means both the days and the nights, and "all the days of your life" is coming to include the messianic era. And apparently even according to this explanation they still disagree. Because according to Ben Zoma there are two obligations—one by day and one by night. But to the Sages it’s one obligation whose time is by day and by night. And here is not the place to figure that out.

Now we’re going to go to the next piece that follows. "Blessed is the Omnipresent, Blessed is He. Blessed is He who gave the Torah to His people Israel, Blessed is He. The Torah speaks of four sons: one wise, one wicked, one simple, and one clueless who knows not how to ask."

"Baruch HaMakom"—this is the version in the Siddur of the Shla and the Yaavetz. Now he begins to expound on verses. And he starts by saying "Blessed is the Makom," like a person who expounds and says "in the name of God," and then he begins to expound. This is from the Abudraham. Here you have four times the word "Baruch": "Baruch HaMakom," "Baruch Hu," "Baruch shenatan Torah," and "Baruch Hu." Four times "Baruch" corresponding to the four verses written regarding the mitzvah of the Haggadah, which is a positive mitzvah of saying the Haggadah. And it requires a blessing. Only that it’s exempt by the Krias Shema as mentioned before, that you already make a blessing before and afterwards, so that’s included. But because of its dearness they hinted to it with these four blessings.

"Baruch HaMakom," Blessed is the Place. A place means God, the Omnipresent. Why do we nickname the name of God and call Him Place? Because He is the place of the world, but the world is not His place (Bereishis Rabbah Parsha 68, section 9). Like we say in the verse, "Behold, there is a place with Me" (Exodus 33:21). Rashi says on the second explanation that God is the place of the world.

"Regarding four sons," this is based on the Yerushalmi Pesachim Chapter 10, halakha 4, and the Mechilta at the end of Parshat Bo. It’s also in the Haggadah of the Rambam, in the Zevach Pesach, in the Siddur of the Shla, the Yaavetz, and more. And in the Yerushalmi they use the word "tipesh" (foolish) in the place of "tam" (simple). And there are other changes.

So the four sons are the Wise, the Wicked, the Simple, and the one who knows not how to ask. The order of the verses is not written like that. But he mentions them in the way of their wisdom: first the Wise one, then the Wicked one—because he’s also wise but because of the evilness of his heart he does bad—then you have the Simple one who has a little wisdom to ask, and then you have the one who doesn't even know how to ask. That’s from the Abudraham.

Next piece in the Haggadah we have: What does the wise son say? "What are these commemorative laws, supra-rational laws, and civil laws which God our God has commanded you?" And you should therefore instruct him in the laws of the paschal lamb: we do not serve any dessert after the paschal lamb.

The Rebbe comments over here: First we have the piece before, "What does the wise son say?" and "What does the wicked son say?" A hint: what a person really is, his essence, he reveals when he speaks.

"What are these laws which God our God commanded you?" (Deuteronomy 6:20). "You," meaning you that went out of Egypt, since it was regarding you. But of course he’s not excluding himself from the people, because he says "our God," so he says he is our God, as opposed to the wicked son who says "commanded you" (excluding himself). This is from the Machzor Vitri. To point out that in the Yerushalmi, the Mechilta, and the Rambam the version here is "commanded us" instead of "you." And also the first Haggadah in print also says "us."

"And you also tell him," in addition to what is written in the portion of "We were slaves to Pharaoh," that we already said to him, you also tell him the rest of the laws of Pesach until the last thing, which is that you don't eat after the Pesach lamb. This explanation is from the Zevach Pesach.

What does "Ein maftirin" mean? (Pesachim 119b) means one doesn't finish from the meal after he ate the Pesach lamb by eating dessert. This is from the Raav. So tell him "Ein maftirin achar haPasach Afikoman." To point out that in the Yerushalmi this response is to the simple son. And in Simchas HaRegel he brings a version that this is the response to the wicked son.

Then we have the next son, the wicked son: what does he say? "What is this bothersome service to you?" "To you" and not to himself. Because in clearing himself of the law, he has denied a basic principle of Judaism. You should therefore also blunt his teeth and say to him, "Because of this that God did for me when I left Egypt." "For me" and not for him. If he had been there, he would not have been redeemed.

"What is this service?" This is the verse in Exodus 12:26 regarding the wicked son. "And also you," in addition to the response over there in the verse, also blunt his teeth, etc. This is from the Zevach Pesach.

"Because of this," this is in Exodus 13:8. This is written in the portion of the son who knows not how to ask. But from it we learn only the words "because of this." But the words "for me and not for him," we learn for the wicked son. As if to say: if the context had no meaning for the one who knows not how to ask, then give its context to the wicked son. So "for me and not for him" is a verse from the son who knows not how to ask, but it applies to the wicked son. This is from the Zevach Pesach and Abudraham.

"For me and not for him"—in the Mechilta it’s in a form of direct address: "for me and not for you; if you had been there..." And it appears because of the honor of those other people that are sitting at the table, those who organized the Haggadah made this change so it shouldn't be "for me and not for you," which would be referring to other people, so we say "for him."

Then we have the next son: the simple son, what does he say? "What is this?" And you tell him: "With a strong hand God took us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery." "What is this?" This is from Exodus 13:14.

And then we have the one who knows not how to ask, you must take the initiative, as the verse states: "And you shall tell your son on that day saying: Because of this that God did for me when I left Egypt."

So for the son who knows not how to ask, it says "At p’tach lo." Instead of saying "Atah" (you - masculine), it says "At" (you - feminine). The pain of the father is very great when he sees that there is no response, no saying in the mouth of his son, he doesn't ask. His power becomes weakened. So that’s why it’s "At," it's in the feminine form. This is similar to the Sages' exposition on a verse in Numbers 11:15, "Atah oseh li" (where Moses addresses God with the feminine 'At' because of his weakness).

"P’tach lo"—from the language of the verse in Proverbs 31:8, "Open your mouth for one who is mute, who can't speak."