383 —על מנהגי סדר פסח, מבנה ההגדה, וקבלת התורה

B"H, 28 Tammuz, 5708.

Shalom u'Vrachah!

I acknowledge receipt of your letter from the 7th of Iyar (which was sent by regular mail), and I was glad to hear that you and your family are well. In the meantime, my letters from before Pesach have surely arrived, in which I also informed you about receiving the Sinai journal from Adar 5707—thank you very much.

Regarding your comments and according to your points:

A. You wrote that in Bavli the expression is "chazi" while in Yerushalmi it is "chami." This is indeed stated in Erech Midrash LeBechor and in Aruch HaShalem at the end of entry "cham." See there for several examples. However, in my humble opinion there is more here than just this distinction, as "chazi" is not just a difference of wording: it comes from "machazeh echzeh." Also note what is written in Likkutei Torah Parshas Mattos, beginning of "Einei Kol."

B. The term Haggadah comes from "vehigadeta levincha" (and you shall tell your son)—I noted this in the Haggadah with the collected notes as also written in Avodah Zarah and elsewhere. If you say that Haggadah shel Pesach means Midrash shel Pesach, then only part of our Haggadah—from "Avadim Hayinu" until "V'ne'emar lifanav Halleluya"—is included. But apparently this is not implied by the Talmud or early commentators.

C. The order's signs are arranged as rhymes. It seems that this supports our version: "Rachtzah." On the contrary, this even supports the version "Rachtz," because then both "Barech" and "Nirtzah" rhyme: Kadesh Urchatz; Karpas Yachatz; Maggid Rachtzah; Motzi Matzah; Maror Korech; Shulchan Orech; Tzafun Barech; Hallel Nirtzah.

D. The verses for the wise son and simple son are phrased in singular form, but for the wicked son they are phrased in plural form. Perhaps one can say that this is because the category of wicked includes various types with different levels of knowledge: wise, simple, and even one who does not know how to ask—all sharing wickedness as their common trait. Therefore their question's wording is also identical: "Mah ha'avodah hazot lachem" (What is this service to you). And we see clearly that those who most forcefully ask "What is this service to you?" are precisely those who do not even know how to ask. (However, if so perhaps “one who is wicked” should be listed last—but it can be explained.) Rabbi Chadakov pointed out to me that perhaps the reason for this distinction is because when wicked people speak or ask it is with disorder and confusion (see Rashi on Devarim 1:22), each one separate and divided even from his friend (see Rashi on Bereishit 46:27).

* * *

At the end of your letter you asked about my citation from Levush regarding why on Yom Tov we do not say “be’ahavah mikra kodesh,” since acceptance of Yom Tov mitzvot was only through coercion—if so:

A) How can we say “v’titen Hashem Elokeinu be’ahavah” (and You gave us with love) also on Yom Tov? The distinction seems simple: The first “be’ahavah” refers upward—to “v’titen”—that You gave with love; while the second “be’ahavah” refers downward—that Bnei Yisrael call it a holy convocation with their own love.

B) How does Chazal’s statement “He forced them…” (“He held the mountain over them…”)—which implies a great notification regarding acceptance of Torah—fit with “na’aseh v’nishma” (we will do and we will hear) and “they accepted His kingship willingly” (which refers to Kriat Yam Suf but not to acceptance of mitzvot)?

The inner explanation is: The possibility not to accept Torah and mitzvot exists only as long as one does not fully recognize intellectually, emotionally, or tangibly that they alone are ultimate good and their absence ultimate evil. As one approaches such recognition, refusal becomes less possible.

At Maamad Har Sinai only fifty days had passed since leaving Egypt—a land steeped in corrupt traits—and there had not yet been time for Bnei Yisrael to reach such recognition themselves; rather from Above they were compelled into this awareness by a revelation so powerful they saw tangibly that Torah and mitzvot are absolute good—even physically—and without them life itself has no value—even physically. Therefore they said wholeheartedly “na’aseh v’nishma.” But since they did not reach this awareness on their own gradually but rather received it as a gift—a flash from Above—after Maamad Har Sinai only a hidden impression remained. From then on there was room for protest regarding Torah observance because now fulfilling Torah practically became a great challenge.

In short: At Maamad Har Sinai all Bnei Yisrael were granted a gift from Above—similar or almost like a prophet during prophecy (see Zohar II 94a; Moreh Nevuchim II ch.32; Abarbanel there; Avodat HaKodesh IV ch.29; Ikkarim III ch.11 etc.)—who sees Divine visions; thus they said willingly “na’aseh v’nishma.” But once prophecy ceased it cannot be demanded that everything accepted during prophecy be carried out practically.

See Torah Ohr Magen Avraham beginning “Chayav Inash” (second discourse), ch.4.

Summary

The Rebbe explores subtle distinctions in Pesach customs and texts while revealing profound insights into how Bnei Yisrael accepted Torah at Sinai—not through gradual self-development but via an overwhelming Divine revelation whose lasting impact required later personal effort to actualize.