Rov Torah Pessach

A collection of thirty shiurim by the Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik Zatzal or

based on his teachings in honor of his 10th Yarhziet.
Collected by Rav Ari Kahn
adk1010@gmail.com

Index:
• Lecture of January 1975 Agaloth
• Bo Sketch The tenth plague
• VaYayehi (why Yakov did not want to be buried in
Egypt)
• Bo -January 10, 1976 hardened heart
• Bo wealth of Egypt
• Asking for Goods Lecture of February
1, 1975
• "Bo el Paroh" January 1975 Moshe as
messenger
• First Born --February 8, 1975
• haggadah1 Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT'L on Haggadah
Shel Pesach The mitzvah of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim
• haggadah2 Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT'L on Pesach
and Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim (shiur date: 3/25/69)
• bshalach.98 Shiur HaRav Soloveichik
ZT"L on Parshas Bshalach (Shiur date:
2/9/71)
• Bshalach Shiur Harav on
Parshas Bshalach"Ashira L'Hashem Ki
Gao Ga'ah".
• Bshalach Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT'L on Parshas
Bshalach (Shiur Date: 2/5/74) Moshe charged Yehoshua

1
 • Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT"L on
Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim (Shiur date:
1969)
• Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT"L on
Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim - 2
• Lecture deleivered by Rabbi
Soloveitchik on Saturday night, April
7, 1979 “Shabbos Hagodol”
• Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik
on Saturday night, January 12, 1989
“Parsha Shmos”
• Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday
night, January 19, 1989 Sedra Vayroh
• Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday
night, February 3, 1980
• Parsha B’shalach / Shabbos Shirah
• Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday
night, February 9, 1980 “Yisro”
• Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday
evening, January 27, 1979
• Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday
night, February 3, 1979 “Humility of Moses”
• Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik Saturday
evening, February 10, 1979. “Parsha B’Shalach”
• Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday
night, Feb 17, 1979 Yisro.
• Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik Saturday
evening, February 24, 1979 “Yisro”
• Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday
night, March 3, 1979 “Parsha Terumah” …
• peasch.01 Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT"L on Erev Pesach
Shechal B'Shabbos
• Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT"L on Makas Bchoros
• Pesach: The Four Cups of Yosef Selection
from “Emanations”© Rabbi Ari D. Kahn
Based on teaching of the Rov regarding why Moshe was
to ask for only three days.

Lecture of January 1975 Agaloth

Egypt had highly developed its technology. Especially, Egypt had
domesticated the horse for use-especially for warfare. It is the first
we find mentioned in history the use of the horse, the rider and the
chariot for warfare. The horse and rider, therefore, was the might

2
and power of the Egyptian empire. Countries that discover new
weapons win wars, and it is interesting to note that from the time
that Egypt arrived, 3000 B.C.E., until almost modern times, the
horse has remained the means of conducting war throughout the
world. England introduced the tank during the first war, and thus
won the war. The weapon of the second war was the atomic bomb.
"Sus v'rochbo, rama vayam" (the horse and the rider, G-d cast into
the sea). We ask ourselves, "Is the throwing of man and his horse
into the sea the power of G-d?" However, there is a deeper
meaning. Whatever the secret weapon may be in its given era, it
proves no deterrent to the Almighty. Whether the weapon is the
horse and rider, the tank, the atom or hydrogen bomb, in the eyes
of G-d it is as nothing. "Sus v'rochbo," whatever the weapon, He
will cast it into the sea and make it as if it never existed. In the
case of Pharaoh, the horse and the chariot was Egypt's exclusive
weapon, manufactured by the government.
We find twice in the Torah in Sedra Vayigash, that Pharaoh instructs
Joseph and his brothers to bring their father (Jacob) and their
families. The first one is immediately after he hears of the brothers'
arrival; the second is a few sentences later. The first time he merely
gives a suggestion, but the second time is an actual command.
"And now I command! Do this: Take for yourselves chariots from the
land of Egypt for your children and your wives, and carry your
father and come." The reason for the command was that the
chariots and wagons could not be taken out of the land without an
order from the king himself. Without Pharaoh's order it would be a
criminal act. It is comparable to today where it takes an executive
command or order to involve the movement of atomic weapons.
Also, these chariots were to be used only for carrying goods,
provisions etc.-not to be sold or given away. This is one of the
reasons why the Torah states that when Jacob saw the agaloth (the
wagons) his heart was revived, for he understood that Joseph must
be close to the king.
The rumor was heard that Joseph's brother had come and it was
good in the eyes of Pharaoh and the eyes of his servants. Why were
they happy? Actually, Pharaoh had usurped his power by elevating
a slave, a prisoner, to such a high position. The laws or constitution
of Egypt specifically stated that a slave could not rule. Until the
advent of the brothers and the disclosure of Joseph's family,
Pharaoh's advisors were adamant in their demand that a slave
could not rule. They kept objecting. Suddenly, Pharaoh had the
answer to his critics. When they discovered that he came from the
highly respected family of Abraham, it made a vast difference, for
Abraham's influence was widespread, and even though they may
have disliked him, they respected him.

3
What constituted Joseph's greatness? It was the durability in his
personality. He was a tough practitioner-one who could dream and
practice his dreams. He was a dreamer and at the same time an
implementer. This was his greatness, and Pharaoh understood it
and was greatly thankful to Joseph. Pharaoh envisioned eleven
more brothers of this nature, and was extremely eager to have
them in Egypt. It is a well known fact, that after both wars, the
victorious nations had stolen the great scientists from the
vanquished for their own benefit. Having the brothers would be to
Egypt's advantage. Pharaoh never understood why Joseph never
asked permission to inform his family, to bring his family, between
the years of Joseph's ascension to power and the final revelation.
Undoubtedly, Pharaoh was told by his advisors that Joseph had dual
loyalties. The reason is that Joseph saw that Hashgacha (Divine)
was planning something which he could not interfere with.
Why was Pharaoh so excited at learning the news of the brothers?
It is understandable that he might want the young people, but why
did he say first, "Bring your father?" Certainly, he did not have in
mind the creation of a moshav z'kaynim (a home for the elderly). It
almost seems to indicate, "If Jacob comes you are welcome; if not
then you are not welcome." Joseph must have spoken much to
Pharaoh many times about his father, about life at home, and
Pharaoh was enchanted and enlightened. Pharaoh had great
understanding of spirituality, and he understood that Joseph's
greatness was rooted in his father. Pharaoh felt that the "fertile
soil" must be in Egypt or he would lose all the talent. Later, the
mourning for Jacob was not merely ceremonial, but they felt they
had lost a truly great man. They felt that something very great had
been lost, an it was called the "Mourning of Egypt." Also, with
Joseph and Jacob there was a movement in Egypt towards morality
and high ideals in addition to strength and might. Later in history
with "vayakam melech chadash" the arising of a new king, there
was a revolution against the teachings and principles.
Why did Pharaoh instruct that the wagons were for the wives and
children (other articles), but for Jacob the Torah states "unsosem"
(and you shall carry him). This statement makes a great spiritual
person of Pharaoh. Later, in the desert during the wanderings of
the Israelites, we find that the children of Gershon and Merrari used
animals or wagons to carry various parts of the Ohel Moed (the
Tabernacle). The Holy Ark was carried on the shoulders! The
connection is that if an ark had to be carried, a great human must
also be carried!
Rashi tells us that when Jacob saw the agaloth (wagons), his heart
revived because Joseph left his home to visit the brothers, they
were studying the section of the Torah from the conclusion of Sedra
Shoftim which states that if a slain person is found without city

4
limits and the murderer is unknown, the elders of the nearby cities
come out and measure the proximity of the slain to the nearest city.
Then the elders of that city bring a heifer (never used for work) into
that rough terrain, break its neck and wash their hands over the
heifer declaring, "Our hands have not shed the blood." Do we not
know that the elders, the most highly respected, did not kill the
stranger? It means, however, that a stranger, an unknown poor
man came into the city and was sent away without lodging, without
food, almost without regard. Had he been regarded and provided
for, then perhaps he would not have been slain. If such a man was
refused shelter, the heads (roshim) of the city were responsible.
They did shed blood indirectly. (Joseph, when he sent his brothers
to inform Jacob that he, Joseph, was alive, informed them to use
the word agaloth as a key word and Jacob would remember what
they studied together and would believe.)
This parsha deals with Jewish responsibility. It is almost frightening
how the Torah demands responsibility from a leader. It demands
not only direct action, but indirect action as well. Jacob knew by
holy spirit (ruach hakodesh) that Joseph would be a leader of
unlimited power, and that is why he studied with him this section. It
taught him how to be great, and in turn, Joseph informed his father,
"I have never misused my power."

Bo Sketch notes taken from Rabbi Soloveitchik's lecture on

Saturday evening January 13, 1972
1. The tenth plague of Egypt was against the first born because
they were all guilty of the crime called, "primogeniture" (exercising
the power of the first born). In Egypt if a father left the house, the
first born held absolute power of imprisonment and death over
even members of his own family. It can be imagined then how they
treated slaves such as Israelites. They were all guilty and worthy of
death punishment. G-d warned against the practice, and we find
that among leaders of Israel the first born were not necessarily the
leaders. For example, we find Moses and David being the last in
their families, and Joshua came from the tribe of Benjamin, the
twelfth son of Jacob. Thus, G-d abandoned primogeniture. Each
b'chor (first born) of Egypt was a tyrant and was guilty of
enslavement.
Already, the patriarchal hierarchy was establish with Cain, the first
born son of Adam and Eve. Even his name Kayin means, "I have
established or purchased." The words of Chava were, "Kaniti ish et
Hashem." (I have purchased, or acquired, a man from G-d.) The
word ish means here a "master." The text follows, "Vatosef
laledeth" (and she gave birth again). This means that the second
one already was not important to her; he would merely be a helper
to Cain. This is exemplified by his name "Hevel," which in Hebrew

5
 means vain or foolish. Under these circumstances, he had no right
to become a shepherd, but merely a helper--a farmer to Cain.
However, he rebelled, he violated the social order.
2. After the murder of his brother, Cain argued with G-d saying,
"Should I be my brother's keeper, or should you?" Apparently, if
Abel died, it was your predestination, and if so, how can you charge
me with murder? G-d answered him, "You are bound to moral law."
The earth, of which you are a tiller, has stamped your act as
immoral. If a man starts to question morality, he ceases to be
moral. In this respect, naivet ‫ י‬is greater. A philosopher said that if
you start to philosophize about prayer, you won't pray.
3 "Listen, the voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me." (Do
you hear the voice?) Whenever a murder is committed, it is not
only the person who is gone, but the possible genius, or the people
or generations that could possibly have ensued. Therefore, we say
the plural "shfichat damim" (the spilling of bloods). This is a
historical crime, and so is the neglect of children's education, for
also here we don't know what we have destroyed for the future.
That too is a historical crime.
4. Insulting is also a "shfichat damim" because it undermines
confidence, and this in turn can destroy initiative for the future. Rashi
says that Cain killed Abel many times before the fatal blow with the
shfichat damim of insult.
5. Shatnez (intermingled) is the product of the farmer (linen) with
the product of the shepherd (wool, and should not be intermingled.
6. In connection with primogeniture, the Torah completely abhors
one person exercising power over another, and declares that
Joseph, who was almost the youngest of the brothers, died first
(before all of them) because he exercised power over them before
the revelation even though he treated them better than they
deserved.
7. G-d declares, "Kadesh li kol b'chor." (Sanctify to me all the first
born.) They are mine and are not the ones to hold the all potent
power.
8. If this is so, why does the Torah declare that when a father
leaves an inheritance, a double portion shall go to the first born?
The reason for this is not because of extra power, but because a
first born is a helper to his father. In many cases, he helps the
father to rear the smaller ones, to help educate them with the
knowledge he has acquired, and to guard over them. Thus, the
father is allowed to pursue his work in order to earn a living.
Thereby, the Torah rewards the first born with an extra portion, but
it does not give him extra power.

Parashat VaYayehi Lecture by Rabbi Soloveitchik (date

unrecorded-perhaps Winter of 1972)

6
There are some stages where the patriarch is called Israel, and
other stages where he is called Jacob. He is called Jacob whenever
he is not free, or is dependent on others. Therefore, by grabbing
the heel of Esau, he demonstrates dependency, and is called in the
Torah Jacob. Thus, when a Jew is not free to mold his own destiny,
he is called Jacob. When the patriarch emerged victorious from the
struggle with the angel, he is now called Israel. The final sedra of
Breishit begins with the words "Vayechi Yaakov" (and Jacob lived)
because he was now about to die, and enslavement was about to
commence. We see that it would be inappropriate to use the name
Israel at this time because it was the start of defeat and humility.
Life in Mitzrayim is basically described in the prophecies of
Yechezkel (Ezekiel) and in Tehilim-the psalms of David. The Jews
were completely integrated; they had become an integral part of
the Egyptian economy. They had come from Canaan-a land of
shepherds-to a great society, perhaps the greatest of the world at
that era. Consequently, there was degeneration and assimilation.
However, they did not give up their identity! The people were
taught that generations ago there was a father Abraham who made
a covenant with G-d, and that at some point in time a mysterious
redeemer would appear and would pronounce the words, "pakod
pakadity etchem" (I will certainly remember you). Jacob gave them
these words, a password, so that they shouldn't believe a usurper
whose name they didn't know. Again, we find a correlation between
Jacob and Israel, for physically they were Jacob, enslaved, but
spiritually they were proud and independent, Israel. Thus, Moses
found the people ready to listen; Jacob had prepared the people.
Why did Jacob refuse to be buried in Egypt? It was motivated by
one thought, one which had great importance. There is a tendency
to come closer to parents as one gets older, to come closer to the
roots. It was thought that their real identity was rooted far from
Egypt. Jacob emerged as a spiritual giant, for he defeated the
assimilation. It was the first time that a minority refused to shed its
identity! Reuven and Shimon entered Egypt, and Reuven and
Shimon emerged! "Vayakrivu y'mai Yisrael lamuth" (and the days
drew near for Israel to die). It is symbolic that Israel will live.
In teaching, it is felt that the younger the student and the older the
teacher the better the results. It is important not only to teach the
facts, but to teach the emotions and the experiences. Of course,
the word zakain (elder) is symbolic because ripeness in years is not
necessarily a qualification for transmitting ideas. However, an older
individual who actually "experienced" can relate better. Jacob
transmitted the tradition to Ephraim and Menashe prior to giving
his blessings to his own sons because he desired to hand down
directly to the third generation, not via Joseph (the second
generation). Of course, the age difference was very great. And, he

7
gave priority to Ephraim because he was even younger. Thus, Jacob
desired to prove that tradition could be handed through many
generations, even skipping generations. Jacob proved that a man
3500 years ago can address himself to a person living today. When
Jacob proved that an old man from ancient Canaan could
communicate with young children (Ephraim and Menashe), born in
Egypt aristocracy without the mediation of Joseph.
In the sedra of Vayichi, Jacob pointed out to Joseph that Rachel was
buried by the roadside and not in a lonely obscure grave. It is a fact
that grandchildren rarely visit the graves of their grandparents, but
by this burial, not only will her grave be visited but Rachel is
considered the mother of the Jewish people and Jacob the father.
We are told in Scripture that when the Jewish nation went into exile
at the destruction of the first Temple, while they were in despair
and on the way to captivity in Babylon, it was Rachel's soul that
intervened for them, and G-d assured her that they would return.
By Jacob declaring that Ephraim and Menashe are to me as Reuven
and Shimon, he showed us that he was the father of all Jewish
people. He assured Joseph that all generations passing along the
way will consider her as the mother.
The Torah tells us that Joseph taught the third generation-the
children of Ephraim and Menashe-the same as his father showed
him to skip over generations. Thus, Joseph emulated his father in
the swearing that his bones be taken up from Egypt. Pakod
(remember) is repeated twice at the end of the sedra. The first one
means that he assures his brothers that they have won the battle
of assimilation, "We have all had a share in the victory." "Vayishba
bnei Yisrael" (and he made swear the children of Israel), not echav
(his brothers). He wanted to prove that no matter how high a Jew
becomes politically, he doesn't give up his Jewish identity. Of
course, he is loyal to his community, but he doesn't allow his
identity to suffer. Who was it who took the bones of Joseph out of
Egypt? It was Moses, the grandchildren of Levi who had conspired
to kill Joseph. Actually, Levi changed his mind about Joseph, and
handed down beautiful stories about him so that the grandchild
Moses loved Joseph. Moses came to love and revere Joseph as a
rabbi and a master.

Bo -January 10, 1976 Text of lecture-Ramban (Nachmanides)

and Ibn Ezra
"V'ani hichbad'ti et libo." (Sedra Bo) (And I have hardened his
heart.) We all believe in freedom of will, for it is the very foundation
of belief. We believe that without this freedom of will, the very
foundation of the religion would be shattered. As evidence, we find
it in Sedra Nitzavim (Deuteronomy). "I give you the choice of 'good
and life,' or 'bad and death.' I advise you to accept the good." In all

8
physical aspects of life, G-d decrees and determines, except in
moral life. Here, G-d does not interfere, for if there were no
freedom of choice, the sinner would complain justly. Since there is
freedom, a sinner should never despair because the gates of
t'shuvah (repentance) are always open. That saying due to
circumstance he had no choice is not mitigating. But, if the sinner
can pollute himself, he can also cleanse himself. It is a narrow
demarcation—a boundary over which one can easily step.
Why did G-d intervene in Pharaoh's case? Maimonides declares that
the whole concept of reward and punishment rests on freedom of
choice. In this context, why then was Pharaoh punished? The first
sentence of the sedra contains a contradiction, "Go into Pharaoh
because I have hardened his heart in order to punish him!" Rabbi
Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish (Resh Lakish) engaged in a
controversy regarding this statement. Rabbi Yochanan said, "The
sinners quote this word in defense of their wicked doings, for it
appears that Pharaoh was unable to do t'shuvah--he is not
responsible." Resh Lakish says, "There are no mitigating
circumstances. If it concerns the scorners, then G-d scorns them. G-
d warns man once, twice, thrice, and if he refuses to answer then,
G-d closes the heart of the sinner so that he shouldn't repent." That
happened to Pharaoh. G-d warned him five times--not three (the
first 5 plagues do not say, "I have hardened his heart.")--and he
paid no attention. G-d says, "You have hardened your heart, I will
increase your uncleanness." G-d takes away the freedom of a
sinner, not at once, but only after he has been warned. The
habitual sinner has no way back, whereas the incidental sinner
always has the promise of t'shuvah, never is freedom of the sinner
removed if the chet (sin) is incidental, as long as there is no
repetition. The moment chet becomes normal practice, the sinner
loses. In modern history, we found similar circumstances, for in
France, if a man was a habitual sinner or criminal, he was sent
away to an island--removed for good from society.
And yet, the answer cannot satisfy the Jew who prays on Rosh
Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Here, the concept is that the gates of
t'shuvah are constantly open to the very last day of a person's life.
No matter how he has sinned, even to the point of denying the
existence of G-d, if he repents completely, truly all is forgiven.
Nothing can stop t'shuvah. As for example, we have
Nebuchadnezer who destroys the Beit Hamikdash, his great-great-
grandson being the great Rabbi Meir. To further illustrate the power
of t'shuvah, we found that the executioner of the 10 great martyrs
asked if he would receive Olam Habah (a share in the world to
come) if he removed the wet wool which was placed on one of the
martyrs to prolong his agony when he burned. The answer was that
he would receive Olam Habah, even such a person. However, there

9
is a deeper meaning. G-d granted wisdom to man; He implemented
reason and intellect in his heart in order to increase his salvation,
or to protect him against evil and disaster. It is the ability to be
divine.
There is a being called adam (man), but this particular being is not
free. When the man receives chachma (wisdom) the charisma
becomes a divine quality. Then, the man becomes free to protect
himself against disaster. He only becomes free when he receives
the divine endowment. It is ridiculous to say that G-d interfered
with freedom of choice.
Ibn Ezra divides man into two types of beings. The first one is
adam-the type of person before G-d gives man divine charisma or
tzelem Elokim. It is up to man to accept it; if not, he can be an
animal. This simple man is out to exist and to enjoy existence. All
his interests revolve around enjoying himself. However, that does
not mean that this type of person is a brute. On the contrary, he
can be cultured, he has a set of moral laws and many objectives.
However, his humanity is a very simple affair; it is wrapped up in a
way for pleasure. As such, he doesn't have much choice or freedom
of action. He cannot rebel against his own practicability. For
example, in modern life we find it where manufacturers, business
tycoons pollute rivers, streams, the environment despite the threat
to life and despite that they understand it only too well. And they
and their scientists deny everything, will fight all measures to
suppress them, and will take their cases into court in an attempt to
convince that what they are doing is all right; even though, they
know they are polluting. Yet, their is no doubt of the possibility that
their may be destroying them, and their very children, and their
generations to come. What is it all for? It is for profit. They have
only one norm-profit. For the military, it is pride. Don't
governments, for instance, know that by exploding nuclear
weapons they are releasing radioactivity into the atmosphere which
can cause blood cancers, leukemia, which can kill them and their
children? And yet, it is compulsive action-no freedom of will. This is
adam. There is the other personality, and this is the one who
receives divine charisma, the divine personality. This man differs in
that he has a group of interests which the natural man doesn't
have; his is free. He has two frames of reference. Quite often, the
natural man digs his own grave and destroys himself. An example
is capitalism.
Especially during the first two decades of this century, capitalism
became drunk with making profit. It oppressed terribly, such as the
sweat shops of New York where the workers were paid two dollars a
day, lived in the very building in which they worked (owned by the
manufacturers), and was, in turn, forced to pay rent to the same

10
man who paid her. Thus, in order for man to exist, he must know
how to sacrifice.
"Hichbad'ti libo" (I have hardened his heart). It is ridiculous that G-d
discouraged Pharaoh from letting the people go. It means that he
made the choice for Pharaoh very difficult!
Let us analyze the state of affairs as existed in Egypt at the time of
the oppression of the Hebrews. Egypt was one of the two great
empires of the world, Chaldea being the other. The people of the
Egyptian empire did not starve, as we know to exist today in India,
Bangladesh, Biafra. It manufactured the world's best cotton, linen,
and made the fine things of life (not only necessities of life). Every
commodity which a country that uses slaves manufactures is
prosperous for the simple reason that they don't have to pay labor.
The Egyptians built storehouses, had bumper crops and six
hundred thousand slaves. The prosperity of Egypt was built on
slavery!
Suddenly, two people appear with the request to let all the slaves
go free. Pharaoh knew that the prosperity of his country, and the
economy was built on slaves. He knew that it would collapse, and
that there would be a complete dislocation. It would cause civil war
and collapse. G-d made the circumstance. "Natural man" became
frightened. Who will take over if you send them away? Thus, the
significance of slave labor tipped the scales.
What if G-d hadn't hardened the heart of Pharaoh? He should have
somehow informed Pharaoh that it is possible to be prosperous
without slave labor. Thus, G-d didn't do. He didn't let him
understand this fact. It is true that the economy may be
incapacitated for a time, but it will recover. As examples we have
the types of slavery which existed in America and in Russia under
the czars where the masses were serfs to the few mighty. And yet,
without the slavery in America, the economy not only recovered,
but went on to greater triumph.
G-d did not inform him of this, and it interfered with Pharaoh's
decision. But, his choice was never interfered with. For example, it
was easy to close a store in Lithuania on Shabbat, for even if it
were open, the owner would not earn a dime. For the American Jew,
especially at the turn of the century, it was much more difficult; it
was almost economic suicide! But, was the Jew deprived of his
choice? It was also a case of "hichbad'ti libo" (I have hardened his
heart). One Jew lost job after job on account of Shabbat and
capitulated. Others persevered to victory. He never lost his freedom
of choice. Freedom of choice is not even taken away from the most
hardened criminal.
Referring to the original discussion between Rabbi Yochanan and
Resh Lakish, we find one important thing lacking with Rabbi
Yochanan. He never had the experience of sin and t'shuvah. He had

11
always lived a saintly life. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, on the other
hand, originally was a sinner, rather an underworld personality who
fortunately came under the influence of Rabbi Yochanan and rose
to great heights. Rabbi Yochanan could not understand Resh
Lakish's position, such as we may not be able to understand why a
person turns to drugs or to alcohol. Therefore, Resh Lakish
declared, 'Those that scorn are scorners." Every sinner, the first
time, is warned by his conscience. If he repeats and repeats,
t'shuvah becomes almost impossible, but it is always possible to
open the gate. The key is in the hand of the sinner, the gates are
never locked!
How was Pharaoh punished? The plagues are divided into three
groups, by not necessarily the three polemics of the Hagadah. The
first 5 plagues constitute the first group-dam (blood), tz'fardaya
(frogs), kinim (lice), arov (noxious animals), sh'chin (boils). This
group inflicted plain misery, a miserable situation to live with. The
second group-dever (destruction of cattle and domestic animals),
barad (burning hail), and arbeh (locusts)-was a destruction of
economy. The third group—choshech (darkness or intense fear),
and makat b'chorot (death of the first born). The choshech
(darkness) may be interpreted as ignorance because slavery makes
life very comfortable for the master, and the second objective of
slavery is to become rich and opulent. G-d showed Pharaoh that
the economy collapsed anyway, in spite of his stubbornness. G-d
did not take away freedom; He just made the choice very difficult!

Bo Shiur HaRav ZT'L on Parshas Bo

"And each woman shall ask from her neighbor and house mate
silver vessels and gold vessels (V'sha'ala Isha M'shchenta Umigras
Baysa)" (Shemos 3:22). "Please speak to the people that each man
should ask from his friend... ('Vyishalu Ish Ma'ais Ray'ayhu)"
(Shemos 11:2-3).
The Rav ZT'L explained the different terminology used in these
verses, in the first verse neighbors and house mates and in the
other a person should request from his friends. The term She'ayla
throughout Tanach means to request or to demand something, not
(in the simple definition) to borrow. When Hashem tells Moshe that
a woman should request FROM her neighbors and a man should
request FROM his friend, the connotation is to demand and take
something away from them. When the Torah discusses the laws of
a borrower (Sho'el, Parshas Mishpatim) the term Ma'im (from with)
is used. This connotes borrowing with an obligation to repay or
return the item as the original owner retains his rights to the
object. Apparently the intent of Hashem was that the objects taken
by Bnay Yisrael should be given to them without reservation
(Matanah Gemurah, see Rashbam, Shemos 11:2). Why was it

12
necessary for Bnay Yisrael to demand these things? Another
obvious question is why did Hashem have to bring the 10 plagues
on Egypt and Paroh when He could easily have forced Paroh to let
Bnay Yisrael go much more readily and quickly?
The Rav explained that Hashem was manifesting the concept of
"Kophin Oso Ad Sheyomar Rotzeh Ani", we apply force to someone
until the individual in question comes to the self realization that
what is demanded of him is correct and he expresses his desire to
comply. Hashem wanted Paroh to recognize on his own the need to
send the Jews out of Egypt and to comply with the demand of
Hashem. As Paroh said "Arise and leave from among my people,
also you and also all of Bnay Yisrael" (Shemos 12:31). However the
question remains: why did Hashem prolong the stay of Bnay
Yisrael? Could Paroh not have been made to realize this in a shorter
interval?
The Rav further explained that Hashem wanted Paroh not only to
allow Bnay Yisrael to leave Egypt, but to come to respect them as
well. As long as they were slaves, Paroh thought of them as sub-
human. Chazal say on the verse of "Who is Hashem that I shall
listen to him" (Shemos 5:2) that Paroh searched through his
chronicles and was not able to find the name of Hashem the Gd of
Israel mentioned anywhere.
What Chazal intended to indicate was that Paroh did not consider
Bnay Yisrael a bona fide nation, therefore he saw fit to enslave
them. The 10 plagues were intended to show Paroh that Bnay
Yisrael were a great nation, more so than to punish him and Egypt.
Paroh was made to realize that they were not a bunch of
insignificant Hebrews, rather they were a great national entity. As
the Torah says "And afterwards he shall send you out" (Shemos
11:1). It does not say I will take you out, rather Paroh will realize
that you are a great nation and a significant entity and he will send
you out.
Property ownership is an extremely important and fundamental
right and principle according to the Torah. This is best illustrated
by the law that one may defend his home and property from
clandestine thieves (Ba B'machteres), and to struggle to protect
them even to the extent of taking the life of the thief. Property,
material possessions, gives a man self esteem and self value. It
also commands respect from others. On the other hand, a slave has
no property of his own, for whatever he acquires belongs to his
master. Hashem told Moshe that "When you shall leave, you shall
not leave empty handed" (Shemos 3:21). Had Bnay Yisrael left
Egypt without material possessions and wealth, they would have
still been looked on as slaves. Therefore Hashem asked them to
demand from the Egyptians items of value as payment for their
years of service. These items were to be taken from their neighbors

13
and house mates, for they were the ones who had taken away their
property and self dignity in the first place. (The Rav noted that
when the Jews were liberated form the concentration camps after
the Second World War, they went to the surrounding towns to
retrieve their stolen property from the local populace who so
eagerly took it from them.)
"And I will give the favor of this people" etc. (ibid) The Egyptians
will come to see you as a nation, a people with dignity and no
longer look upon you as slaves. Some might have thought that the
Egyptians chased the Jews out of Egypt because they had become
lepers. The Torah tells us just the opposite: that they left with
tremendous self respect and dignity. One aspect of this self respect
was their departing with great material wealth, Rechush Gadol.
"V'nitzaltem Es Mitzrayim" (Shemos 3:22): Rashi explains
V'nitzaltem as derived rom the verb to save. That is to say that you
shall save something for yourself when you leave: you shall save
your dignity and earn great respect in the eyes of the Egyptians. As
it says that Moshe gained great respect in the eyes of the
Egyptians and the house of Paroh (Shemos 11:3).
The Rav explained the different terminology between neighbors
and house mates in one verse and friends in the other. The Gemara
teaches us that the term 'Ray'ayhu' applies exclusively to a Jew.
Hashem wanted the Jews to share the wealth among themselves.
A Jew living in a more affluent Egyptian neighborhood would take
more wealth from his neighbors than the Jew who lived in a less
affluent area. Hashem wanted the Jews to distribute the wealth
more equitably. This was an extreme act of Chesed, charity, that
bound the people and demonstrated their sense of a common
destiny. Similarly, the Rambam writes (Matnos Aniyim 10:2) "would
not a brother take pity on his brother". If Jews do not look after
their own brothers and take pity on them, who will? The different
terminology reflects the desire that each Jew take possessions from
their Egyptian neighbors and that they in turn should redistribute
the wealth among themselves so that all Bnay Yisrael would enjoy
equivalent wealth.
After the Jews left Egypt, Hashem asked them to give up a part of
their wealth to build a Mishkan for Hashem (V'yikchu Li Trumah)
(Shemos 25:2). A freed slave, who has had nothing of his own,
finds it extremely difficult to willingly give up any part of his
newfound possessions. To show that they were truly free men and
women, Bnay Yisrael had to demonstrate their willingness to give
up some of their own wealth for a higher cause. Bnay Yisrael
answered this call, particularly the women, who were most eager to
part with their finest jewelry for the sake of building the Mishkan of
Hashem. As it says that the women came forward with greater zeal
than the men, "Vayavou ha'anashim al h'nashim" (Shemos 35:22).

14
___________________________________________________________
(c) Dr. Israel Rivkin and Josh Rapps, Edison N.J. Permission to reprint
and distribute, with this notice, is hereby granted. These
summaries are based on notes taken by Dr. Rivkin at the weekly
Moriah Shiur given by HaGaon HaRav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveichik
ZT'L over many years.

Asking for Goods Lecture of February 1, 1975

This lecture deals with "asking for goods from Egypt, placing them
upon your children, emptying out Egypt. You cannot force people to
love you, but you can command respect according to your worth. If
there is respect, there will be no contempt; act in a dignified
manner and it will precipitate respect. The Egyptian discovered
suddenly that the slaves of yesterday were charming today. During
the year of negotiations, they found Israel charming!"
The man, ish, Moshe was great in the eyes of the officials and the
common people. This respect built up in the year of negotiations. At
the beginning, Pharaoh treated Moshe and Aaron with humor,
almost contemptuously. Pharaoh declared, "Go mind your own
business!" Later, the touch of humor is gone. Pharaoh realized that
it was a serious business, but there was no reverence. Each time
that a plague struck, it interrupted the economy. Just before the
last, it is stated that Moshe was great in the eyes of the people.
Moshe had ruined the Nile, the economy etc., and yet they
respected him, and yet greater was the admiration.
Also, unique to Egypt was the fact that they respected him as a
human being, not a super being. The Egyptians, being pagans,
could have deified him, but the Almighty ruled a different
relationship. They looked upon him, not as a G-d in a pantheon, but
as an ish (a man). It was the first time in pagan history that a
"man" was considered "great." Previously, their kings were
considered as gods. However, Moshe and Aaron taught the Jews
never to idolize any man, no matter how great. It was therefore
later, when Moshe failed to return on time (their calculation) from
Mt. Sinai, that they said in fear, "Ze ha'ish" (that man). They feared
because they knew he was just a mortal man.
There are three aspects in the change of feeling of the Egyptians
towards the Jews.
(1) They saw Moshe's love and tenacity for the people. When
Moshe was with the Almighty, he was the defender, with the people
he was the accuser.
(2) Humans pass the right to take vengeance upon others for
wrongs committed upon them (to refuse to punish criminals is to
turn society into a jungle). Two purposes of punishment are to
punish for the crime, and secondly, a catharsis to rehabilitate.
However, the catharsis rarely works.

15
Consider what would have been if Pharaoh had declared, "All right,
go ahead," and the Jews had walked out. How about the years of
slavery, the killing of the children etc., all would have been
forgotten. They would have walked out with merely a thank you.
This would have been the greatest tragedy! However, this
depended on the Almighty. That is why it is written, "He will not let
you out until I smite Egypt with all my wonders." Otherwise, it
would have been comical. It was a lesson that human blood which
is spilled cannot be forgotten. As long as people are not punished
for crimes, there cannot be freedom. G-d wanted to teach Pharaoh
that the Jews are an abandoned race.
(3) The conduct of the Hebrews themselves! During Greek and
Roman eras, the populace was in great fear of slave rebellions. The
rebellions were bloody as exemplified in more modern times, such
as in France and in Russia. The feudals were always haunted by
such occurrences, for slaves rebel at the worst times of crisis.
Pharaoh's own officers said, "Don't you see that the land is ruined?"
His own prestige was in trouble because his officers spoke to him
abusively-a far cry from the autocracy he held previously. During
the three days of darkness, they (Israel) could have destroyed the
entire populace, certainly could have could have robbed the
treasury. They, certainly, had many grievances. There would have
been no resistance. But instead, they left it to G-d. Who taught
them? Moshe! Consider during the night of the exodus, they could
have taken vengeance. Instead, what did they do? They ate the
korban pesach and sang Hallel.
Thus, after the plague of darkness, the Egyptians realized how
great Moshe and the people were. The people of Egypt started to
change towards Israel before the requesting of jewels. It states that
the women borrowed from their women friends because they were
closer, and knew one another more intimately. After the ninth
plague, however, we find man borrowing from his friend. Yad
Chazaka (a strong hand) is the plague dever (smiting the cattle). It
ruined the agriculture and the economic resources, such as horses
and cattle. But the emptying of Mitzrayim took away the riches,
leaving the land bankrupt, and showing that you cannot prosper
from slavery. Egypt was famous for its manufactured clothes and its
fabrics; the people should have worn these items, but they didn't.
"You shall putt it on your sons and your daughters, but no display of
the brocades and beautiful things on yourselves." G-d's intention
was not to promote vanity, but to discipline the Egyptians. He did
not want them to display it. "I allow you to place it upon your
children!" A child is the most envious person on earth when he sees
things on other children which his parents cannot afford to give to
him. Children feel the pain! The children of Egypt had suffered pain,
and therefore it said, "Place it on your children." These are the two

16
purposes of the riches-punish the Egyptians and give your children
an hour of joy. Right after the giving of the ten commandments, G-
d commanded them to build the Mishkan (the Tabernacle). Cannot
a small house accommodate the Almighty? G-d wanted from them
the very items they took to demonstrate that they were not
miserly. "Lift your eyes to G-d and be happy with what he gives
you!" The people responded well.

"Bo el Paroh" January 1975

"Bo el Paroh" (go to Pharaoh) is different from the wording used in
the Torah in Sedra Va'era when G-d sent Moshe to confront Pharaoh
for the first plague of blood at the Nile River. There, we find the
word lech (which also means to go). Here, before the onset of the
fourth plague of arov (pestilence), G-d said, "Place yourself before
Pharaoh." When the word lech is used, it means meeting Pharaoh
at the Nile; bo means, "Place yourself in front of him." The words bo
or lech are characteristic of the messages. We speak of people
with two personalities. There are people who are always sinning
and always repenting. King Herod was such a one. He murdered
sages and then redecorated the Beit Hamikdash and prostrated
himself before G-d. A man of power should not be a dual
personality; they must reconcile their contradictions. If the king
wants to enjoy many good years on the throne, he must reside
amongst the people. To be authoritarian does not mean to lack
compassion.
Moses was told to approach Pharaoh as the emperor and also to
approach "another" Pharaoh as a private person. When he
approaches Pharaoh as the king, he met him at the Nile, the
symbol of power in Egypt. "Address yourself to the power oriented
Pharaoh at the source of power, Nile. Stop him; block him. Tell him
there are forces stronger. Place yourself strongly in front of him and
protest!" Then, we find the word bo used. "Go into the king in the
palace when he is an ordinary man, a person, a father. Tell him how
wrong it is to throw a child into the water. Tell him about Abraham,
about morality. Perhaps he will respond." There is a spark of good
even in the most wicked. We use the word bo when we ask
someone to come closer. Lech means go, go away. In this case, the
words lech el Paroh would seem to be of no sense. The Almighty
who is ubiquitous is remote and close at all times. There is no
difference; therefore, G-d can use bo and lech. When G-d told
Moses the first time, "Lech el Paroh," the voice originated near
Moshe. One can never leave the Almighty, for He walks with man,
and when man reaches his destination, he finds G-d. "Bo el Paroh,"
"When you come, you will find Pharaoh and Me." Or, it could mean,
"I will go with you."

17
Why did G-d command in such a strange way--"Come to Pharaoh
and Me," or "Come with me?" When Moshe said, "Who am I to go to
Pharaoh," G-d answered, "Because I will be with you." There are
two forms of shelichot (being an agent). First is simply to perform a
mission by proxy. The second is personalistic--two people united by
a bond of friendship, committed, sharing each other's trials or joys.
They achieve a common identity. Thus, in the Beit Hamikdash, the
kohen who prepared the sacrifice did it for the person who brought
it , but the one who brought it had to be present. He could not send
it by proxy. This is the personalistic one. The chazan (cantor) is the
shaliach (agent) of the tzibur (congregation), but the people must
be present. People cannot, for instance, say, "I'll let the chazan
represent me; I'll stay home." It can only be performed in the
presence of the people, not by proxy. It is only accomplished by
common identity. Maimonides ruled that the chazan should not be
close to the aron kodesh, but in the center, close to the
congregants. The people surrounded the shaliach tzibur. Man feels
the hot breath on his cold face, and this experience is the supreme
common identity. That is why in the first expression G-d said,
"Lech." Come with me in common identity. It is not sending him
away, but like the prayer L'cha Dodi--lets go together. Man can
come so close that there is one voice, one feeling.
We live in an era where people don't take history for granted. G-d
waits for man to seize the initiative, waits a long time for the
shaliach (messenger). Let us ask ourselves, "What does G-d need
man for? Why should he depend upon a human being?" The answer
is that G-d wants man to be a participant in the geulah
(redemption). We find in the Megilah, it talks about the search for
the girls, the perfumes etc. Suddenly, the theme changes, and we
find written, "Ish Yehudi etc." There was a Jewish man by the name
of Mordechai etc.) Why? Because there would have been nothing
without the "Ish Yehudi." The same applies here in the Torah,
concerning the redemption from Egypt. The time had arrived as
promised to Abraham. G-d needed the shaliach for the geulah (the
agent for the redemption).
After the mission is accomplished, the shaliach is not mentioned.
The individual deserves no praise. G-d is the warrior! man never is
the warrior. When man becomes the teacher, the mentor, he
deserves praise. G-d does not bestow political economic power on
man. G-d was the speaker, the actor. G-d longs for man, but he
accomplished all. "Lo al yadai shaliach" (not through the hands of a
messenger)-not second class! He was in first class a s merely a
proxy. Without Moshe there would be no geulah, but the entire
geulah, the entire credit is G-d's. We do not say "Moshe Go'alainu"
(Moses the redeemer), for man is not powerful. Power does not
belong to man. The little malignant cell kills the most powerful. We

18
do, however, say "Moshe Rabbainu" (Moses our teacher). Kingship
and power belongs to G-d, but the attribute of knowledge, grace
and kindness can be man's to be like G-d. G-d did not permit
Moshe's name to be mentioned in the exodus, but He did permit his
name to be recorded throughout the Torah. G-d tells Moshe, "You
will never be called a man of power, but will always be called the
great leader." Thus, in Shir Hashirim we have but an allusion to
Moshe; his name is not mentioned. "In the middle of the night on
my bed I sought him (that is Moses). When I found whom I love, I
held him and would not let him go. I brought him to my mother's
house!" On the night of Mitzrayim, Moses's name is eliminated.
Similarly, when the Haggadah of the Mashiach (Messiah) is written,
Mashiach's name also will not be mentioned.

First Born --February 8, 1975

The exodus from Egypt led to matan Torah (giving of the Torah) and
the 613 precepts. With many of the precepts it refers to the exodus
from Egypt, such as "I am the Lord your G-d who took you from
Egypt." We are warned to discipline ourselves in corporeal
excessiveness as was practiced in Egypt. The body should be
disciplined not to be the beast of the field. This includes sexual
excessiveness or immorality and the dietary laws. To discipline the
mind is easy but the body is difficult. Thus, all the pagan religions
worshipped pleasure.
Also included are the precepts of justice. "Deal kindly with
strangers etc." This encompasses the entire principles of the
Torah--kedushah (holiness) and justice. There are precepts
associated with exodus which serve as a memorial, such as eating
of matzoh, the paschal lamb and the injunction against eating
chametz. They are the echoes or reflections of Yetziat Mitzrayim
(exodus from Egypt). They are not permanent or perpetual
precepts but practiced only at certain times of the year. However,
there are two precepts regarding the exodus which serve the entire
year--b'chor (first born) and t'filin (wearing the phylacteries). This is
an analysis between b'chor and Yetziat Mitzrayim.
Why was the plague of the "first born?" It ties in with the mitzvah of
b'chor. G-d said, "Israel is my first born. Let him go or I will kill your
first born." Why didn't G-d tell this to Moshe the entire time He
spoke to him at the revelation at the bush, but only after Moshe
spoke to Yitro (his father-in-law) and was on his way to Egypt?
Often, the first born are the most cruel to the younger ones. They
often utilize their bigness to exploit the younger ones. Often, the
gangs of the street started in parental home with display of
authority. It was a patriarchal slave society--primogeniture. Each
first born was a master of slaves. Why did G-d punish the gods?
Because when you punish a nation you must punish its philosophy.

19
We (Israel) have recognized the unique role of the first born, not as
power. Jacob was not interested in blessings of power. He was
afraid that Esau should not be in line to his covenental destiny. He
wanted to be in line. Actually refuting the theory of power to the
first born, the younger ones almost always were the elected or the
great ones.
G-d owns the world in general but especially the living matter--
man. According to the Torah law, man has very limited access to
the animal kingdom for food and it is loaded with limitations
(dietary laws). There is little prohibition in the organic world, unless
there is kilayim (cross breeding of forbidden species). Blood was
prohibited because it belongs to G-d; the exclusive possession
synonymous with life. The more precious a thing is, the more
specific the prohibitions are from G-d. It belongs to G-d. Children,
the most precious of all, belong to G-d as exemplified by Chana
(the prophet Samuel) a d Abraham (his son Isaac). If the birth of
every child is important to the parent (especially mothers), the
birth of the first child is the greatest experience. It borders almost
on the miraculous. The bachelor is egocentric. Marriage with a child
is a "closed community." With a child the area expands. According
to Hebrew law a childless man could not sit in criminal judgment
because he lacked compassion. Neither can an old man (in capital
cases) because he also lacks compassion. The first born is a source
of deep pleasure. The more precious the love, the more it belongs
to G-d. G-d claims the first born for Himself because the parents
enjoy him so much. Thus, on the night of the exodus, the Egyptian
concept of first born (power) was defeated; the Hebrew version of
(love) conquered.
The first born received two portions. Regarding inheritance he
becomes the "paternal" b'chor. It is a repayment because during his
youth he carries the load and becomes the father's helper. At birth
(Pidyon haben) it is "maternal" b'chor. In the paternal case the
double portion inheritance is for the services he rendered to father
especially in olden times when he helped the father accumulate
wealth. In the maternal case, the b'chor not only opens the womb
but opens the spiritual and emotional community--love.
When one introduces a child as "this is my b'chor," what does it
imply? It means that you have more children--this one is the first
born one. When G-d said to Pharaoh, "Israel is my b'chor," it meant
that He has other children--nations--and loves all his children. What
is the role of Israel as b'chor (first born)? "You are my first born--I'm
giving you the Torah--but don't think I am abandoning the world.
You will be my messengers, my teachers," but "Li chol ha'aretz"
(the whole world is mine). "I am not abandoning the world. As
b'chor you will have to teach."

20
G-d is prepared to accept any nation as long as they will walk along
the laws. But the b'chor must teach. The older child is the greatest
teacher to the younger ones because they can communicate. The
mother and father belong to the "older generation." But, it cannot
be said about the older brother and sister, for they are of the same
generation.
Pharaoh did harm to the 600,000 Jews only, but by depressing the
nation as slaves, he prevented Israel from assuming its role as the
teacher. So, he sinned not only against the Jews but against the
whole world. He prevented us from taking up our teaching although
the assignment was still valid.
At the end of Sedra Shmot we are told that Moshe forgot to
circumcise his son. Why is it told at this time? Tziporah (Moshe's
wife) saved him. Gershom (the older son) was supposed to teach
Eliezer (the younger) and Moshe forgot. It was only a physical
circumcision but a spiritual one as well. Therefore, until he did so,
he couldn't appear before Pharaoh.

haggadah1 Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT'L on Haggadah Shel

Pesach
The mitzvah of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim includes the re-telling of
the story of the exodus as well as the obligation to learn the
Halachos of Pesach. The Hagaos Maymaniyos (end of Hilchos
Chametz and Matzah) says there is an obligation to learn the laws
of Pesach all night based on the Tosefta (Pesachim 10:8) that states
that Rabban Gamliel and the Chachamim that were in the house of
Bytis Ben Zunin and discussed the Halachos of Pesach all night.
(this is a variation of the story of Rabbi Eleazr and the other Tanaim
that spent the entire night discussing Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim.) The
Vilna Gaon derives this obligation to learn the Halachos of Pesach
from the answer given to the Ben Chacham, (which according to
the Gaon was) we must teach him all the Halachos of Pesach, UNTIL
(Ad) Ayn Maftirin Achar Hapesach Afikomen.
The Parsha in Vaeschanan describes the answer given to the Ben
Chacham who asks what are the Aydos Chukim and Mishpatim that
Hashem has commanded us: that we were slaves to Paroh in Egypt
(the Sippur aspect) and then that Hashem commanded us to
perform all the Mitzvos (learning the Halachos) of Pesach. The Rav
noted that the Baal Haggadah only mentions the second part of the
answer given to the Chacham, that of learning the Halachos of
Pesach. Why don't we tell him the complete response to his
question as described in Vaeschanan? The Rav explained that in
Vaeschanan, there is only one child being discussed, the Ben
Chacham. The Torah gives him the complete answer to his
question, that of the story of the exodus and the obligation to teach

21
him all the laws we were given. However at the Seder, all 4 sons
are represented and must be told the story of the exodus.
The Baal Haggadah, in the response given to the Ben Chacham,
wants to single out the uniqueness of the Ben Chacham by noting
that in addition to the Mitzvas Sippur, he is the one who is taught
the Halachos of Pesach.
In reality there are 3 Mitzvos involved in Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim:
1) telling the story (Sippur);
2) Singing praise to Hashem for taking us out of bondage (Hallel
V'Shevach) based on Hashir Hazeh Yihyeh Lachem Klayl
Hiskadesh Chag; 3) learning the Halachos of Pesach.
The third is the most important as the concept of Vayetzavainu
Hashem Laasos Es Kal Hachukim Hayleh, the receipt of the Torah
on Har Sinai, was the ultimate goal of the exodus. (The Chinuch
says that Sephira is intended to connect Pesach and Shavuos, as
the exodus was the medium for Kabbalas Hatorah which was the
desired end. Shavuos is called Atzeres because it is the conclusion
of the holiday of Pesach.)
As mentioned above, Avadim Hayinu, the story of the exodus, is
how the Torah begins the answer to the Ben Chacham. It
immediately follows the Mah Nishtanah. Who asks the Mah
Nishtanah at the seder? The 4 questions are complex and beyond
the capabilities of either the simple son (Tam) or the son who is
incapable of asking intelligent questions. The Rasha scorns the
entire process. It must be the Ben Chacham who asks these
questions at the seder. We answer him initially with the Avadim
Hayinu as mentioned in the Torah, we quickly tell him that we will
complete the rest of the story of the exodus when we involve the
other 3 sons. We immediately involve the Ben Chacham by giving
him a halachic answer, and discussing some of the Halachos of
Pesach that apply to this night. "Had not Hashem taken our
forefathers out of Egypt we and succeeding generations would
have remained as slaves to Paroh in Egypt": this is the Halacha of
Bchal Dor Vdor Chayav Adam Liros Es Atzmo K'ilu Hu Yatza
Mi'Mitrayim, in each generation we must see ourselves as if we
personally were redeemed from Egypt. We then say that as far as
the Mitzvah of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim is concerned, the more the
merrier: this is the Halacha of no upper limit for Divrei Torah. Next
we read the Berysa that shows that all are obligated in the Mitzvah
of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim no matter how learned one might be.
Next, we talk about the Halacha of Zechiras Yetzias Mitzrayim and
discuss when it applies.
The section of the 4 sons describes the Halacha that we must relate
and teach the Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim according to the
sophistication of each child. The Chacham is to be taught
differently than the Tam and so on. The "4 sons" also instructs us

22
that we can not dismiss any of these children from the Mitzvah of
Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim. We can't say that the child is either not
interested or not smart enough to appreciate and therefore neglect
that child. The Torah charged us with teaching 4 types of children,
each according to his capabilities, even if it takes all night to get it
across.
We then continue with the laws of Vhigadta Lvincha, when is the
appropriate time to perform all these Mitzvos and to teach the
children.
The Rav considered Pesach as the most "Lomdish" (requiring the
highest level of Torah learning acumen) of the festivals. One must
be fluent in the various parts of the Shulchan Aruch to prepare for
Pesach. One must understand the intricacies of Choshen Mishpat
to know how to write a proper document for the sale of the
Chametz. (Shtar Mechiras Chometz is among the more difficult
documents to understand and prepare.) Choshen Mishpat is also
needed to understand the rules of Bal Yaraeh and Bal Yimatzay and
how they relate to the definitions of possession and financial
responsibility and obligations regarding personal Chametz. One
must be fluent in Yoreh Deah to handle questions of Issur V'heter
regarding Chametz B'Mashehu, Taaruvas Chametz, Hagalas Kaylim
(Chametz/non-Chametz mixtures, purification of vessels that were
used with Chametz for use on Pesach). And of course Orach Chayim
describes the general laws of Pesach. Yet when we discuss the
Halachos of pesach with the Ben Chacham at the seder, we
concentrate on telling him the Halachos of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim.
The answer to the Ben Chacham given in Vaeschanan says that
Hashem took us out of Egypt B'Yad Chazakah. The Haggadah at the
outset in Avadim Hayinu, essentially quotes the answer as given in
Vaeschanan, and mentions B'Yad Chazakah, simply described as
the mighty hand of Hashem, k'vayachol, that punished Paroh (Note:
the Baal Haggadah interprets Yad Chazakah as the plague of
Dever). However it also includes the words Zeroah Netuyah which
are not found in Vaeschanan. These words come from the text of
Arami Ovayd Avi at the beginning of Parshas Ki Tavo. The Rav asked
why is this phrase from Arami Ovayd added to the Yad Chazakah
that was mentioned in Vaeschanan as part of the answer to the Ben
Chacham presented in Avadim Hayinu?
The Rav explained Zeroah Netuyah as the promise that Hashem will
repeat the miracles of the exodus for Bnay Yisrael. It represents the
promise that Hashem is prepared and ready to protect us from
assimilation and annihilation throughout the generations and is
constantly watching over Bnay Yisrael. Yad Chazakah alone, which
connotes the recognition of the miracles Hashem brought in Egypt
and to Paroh and our resultant obligation to perform the Mitzvos of
Pesach, would have been a sufficient answer to the question of the

23
Ben Chacham. The miracles done for us during the exodus from
Egypt alone would have been sufficient for us celebrate Pesach and
thank Hashem for that redemption. The Chinuch describes the
section of Arami Ovayd, the Mitzvah of Bikurim (which contains the
term Yad Chazakah), as an obligation to show Hakaras Hatov, to
recognize and thank Hashem, for all the miracles and acts of
Chesed He has done for us throughout the ages. We also tell the
Chacham at the seder,as implied by the term Zeroah Netuyah, that
we are obligated to give Hakaras Hatov to Hashem for all these
miracles, past and future.
The Rav mentioned that according to the Chachmei Hakabbalah the
fourth cup of wine at the seder is symbolic of the ultimate
redemption of Klal Yisrael, the Zeroah Netuyah. V'ilu Lo Hotzi
Hashem Osanu Haray Anu Uvaneinu etc. We have a second
statement later in the Haggadah of Becahl Dor Vador Chayav Adam
Liros Es Atzmo Kilu Hu Yatza M'mitzrayim. Why do we need both
apparently redundant statements? There are 2 aspects which we
recognize, the historical aspect that Hashem took our forefathers
out of Egypt which is relevant to us. There also is an obligation to
make the exodus personal, as the Rambam says that a person must
view the seder night as if he himself, right now, has gone out of
Egypt. For the former, relating the story would have been sufficient.
However for our personal obligation, we must say Shirah Chadasha,
we recite a specific Bircas Hashevach for taking us out as well. This
is consistent with the Gemara (Berachos) which notes different
Berachos to be recited when one passes a place where a miracle
happened to his forefathers and when he passes a place where he
himself was saved by a miracle. At first we thank Hashem for
saving our forefathers and must fullfill the obligation to offer a
blessing when passing the place where one's forefathers were
saved. The second aspect is for personal salvation. We associate
Hallel with the aspect of personal salvation, as we emulate the
redemption as if it was happening to us right now.
The Baal Haggadah mentions Afilu Kulanu Chachamim Kulanu
Nevonim Kulanu Zekaynim Kulanu Yodim es Hatorah. Why were
Zekaynim included here (according to some texts it is omitted)?
Zekaynim implies a Baal Horaah, for example Zakayn Mamreh, a
member of the Sanhedrin who rebels against the majority opinion
of Beis Din. The members of the Sanhedrin were called Zekaynim.
The original Beis Din chosen by Moshe in the desert was selected
by a lottery where the tickets stated Zakayn or were left blank. So
there is a close association between Zakayn and Sanhedrin, who
were the most knowledgeable in Torah.
The Baal Haggadah is telling us that even those that are far
superior in their Torah knowledge are obligated to participate in an
exchange of views about Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim. The Haggadah

24
tells us who was gathered around the table in Bnai Brak. It included
students like Rabbi Akiva and their master teachers like Rabbi
Yehoshua. The Rambam juxtaposes the Halachos of one who has no
child to ask him the questions and the obligation of scholars to
participate in Sippuir Yetzias Mitzrayim, saying that he who extends
himelf in this Mitzvah is Meshubach. What is the connection
between these disparate individuals as to their obligation of Sippur
Yetzias Mitzrayim?
The Rav explained that the fundamental Mitzvah underlying Sippur
Yetzias Mitzrayim is Talmud Torah, which has no upper limit. The
more one discusses the more he knows about Yetzias Mitzrayim,
the more different viewpoints he has about it, the more nuances he
sees in it. Even the greatest scholars should learn one from the
other in order to increase their knowledge base, which makes them
Meshubach, improved in their knowledge of Torah.
The Rav explained the other intellectual personalities described by
the Haggadah. The three mentioned are Chacmah Binah and Daas.
The Rav based this on the verse where Hashem selected Betzalel to
build the Mishkan. "V'amalay Oso Ruach Elokim B'chachma
U'betvunah Uvdaas", Betzalel was gifted with these various
qualities that were all needed to build the Mishkan. This notion is
said every day in the bracha of Ata Chonen, we pray for Chachmah
Binah and Daas. (The alternate text of Deah Binah Vehaskel is
essentially the same, in the reverse order.) The Rav described
Chachmah as the ability to be Mechadesh things in Torah, someone
who has an almost mystical gift for feeling their way through a
difficult topic in Torah, where they will all of a sudden be hit with an
idea that will unravel a major question or discrepancy. The Rav
mentioned that Reb Chaim Brisker was such an individual. He had
the "Nefesh Hatorah" which would express itself by illuminating the
intellectual darkness with a bolt of lightning, a chiddush, that
solved the problem.
The second quality is that of Binah. This describes someone who is
capable of analyzing and organizing different opinions and
concepts and make them readily understandable. He possesses a
wealth of knowledge that he can draw on to resolve questions and
present his viewpoint in a discourse.
The third quality is that of Daas. This the Rav described as those
that are capable of being undisputed and recognized Baaly Horaah.
Such gedolim like Reb Yitzchak Elchanan, who lived in the time
when there were many great Gedolei Torah, are still sought out in
areas of Horaah, even by other Gedolim.
Each of these three personalities will view the Mitzvas Sippur
Yetzias Mitzrayim differently, yet in a completely valid way. The Rav
compared this to the Gemara (Gittin 67a) where Isi Ben Yehuda was
enumerating the various Tanaim and their strengths. Each Tana had

25
a different quality that made him special and that made his
learning and teaching unique. For such gedolim there is also an
obligation to participate in Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim to improve
their own knowledge and add to the knowledge of others.
The Rav noted that in general when the Haggadah refers to
Hashem it is as HKB'H. There are 2 places where Hashem is
referred to as Hamakom: prior to the 4 sons and when Yehohua is
quoted (Vachshav Kervanu Hamakom). Why are these 2 places
singled out? Also, what is the connection between the discussion of
the various Tanaim in Bnei Brak and the 4 sons and the Parsha from
Yehoshua?
The Rav explained this by noting the Gemara regarding the
difference between the prophecy of Yeshayahu and Yechezkel.
Yeshayahu describes Hashem as Kadosh while Yechezkel uses the
term Makom. In explaining the differences between a city dweller
who sees the king all the time and the village dweller who
describes the king in full detail to those who have never seen him,
the Rav explained that the prophecies of Yeshayahu and Yechezkel
derived from their different perspectives. Yeshayahu was given
prophecy during a time prior to the exile of Bnay Yisrael where
there was no hint yet of Galus and Churban. Ir was an Ays Ratzon
for the people before Hashem to repent. Hashem was Kivayachol
readily visible through the Bays Hamikdash where the Avodah was
K'tekunah and Kohanim B'avodasam and Leviim B'duchanam. It
was apparent that Hashem was there and Kadosh.
Yechezkel on the other hand was given prophecy after the first
stages of Churban had occurred. It was a time of Hester Panim,
Bnay Yisrael were no longer close to Hashem. Under exile
conditions it was very hard to see the immediacy of Hashem. In
such a case the term Mimkamo, wherever Hashem may be found, is
used. The Rav noted that as an example that in times of Avaylus
when we console the mourners we use the term Hamakom
Ynachem Eschem. There is no greater Hester Panim than in time of
tragedy. It is difficult to see and feel Hashem under such
circumstances where one feels so distant from HKB'H. We therefore
use the word Hamakom, as Yechezkel did.
When Avraham entered the Bris Bayn Habesarim he was promised
the Torah and Eretz Yisrael through the difficult process of a 400
year exile in a foreign land. Under optimal circumstances we could
have expected that these things would have been given to
Avraham in an easy to achieve way, without pain, suffering an
tribulations. Yet Avraham entered the covenant through a dark
fear. Hashem was showing that there will be a distance, a Hester
Panim, which was to begin at that time and would not be broken till
Yetzias Mitzrayim. That is why we refer to Hashem as Hamakom
when we describe our forefathers and their selection. For from the

26
time of Bris Bayn Habesarim, there was an element of distance,
therefore Hashem is referred to as Hamakom. However at the time
of the redemption from Egypt, it says that HKB'H Chishaves
Hakaytz, not in terms of Hamakom, because in this situation the
closeness of Hashem and Bnay Yisrael was revealed.
The first reference to Hamakom is regarding the giving of the Torah
to Bnay Yisrael, Baruch Hamakom Baruch Hu. The Torah was given
to us through suffering, and great difficulties that were associated
with keeping the various Mitzvos throughout the ages. If the name
"HKB'H" would have been associated with the granting of the Torah,
we would have enjoyed a more sanguine and protected life as a
nation. However our destiny is that we have to search for Hashem,
as Hamakom, wherever we may be, both in our daily lives as well
as in our search for Torah knowledge.
____________________________________________________
This summary is Copyright 1996, 1997 by Dr. Israel Rivkin and Josh
Rapps, Edison, N.J. Permission to reprint and distribute, with this
notice, is hereby granted. Subject: Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT'L on
Haggadah

haggadah2 Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT'L on Pesach and

Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim (shiur date: 3/25/69)
The Rav noted that the Rambam (Hilchos Chametz Umatzah 8:1)
refers to "Seder Assiyas Mitzvos Aylu" (the order of performing
these Mitzvos) when referring to the order in which one fulfills the
Mitzvos of the night of Pesach. The term "Seder" clearly applies to
the topics discussed in the previous chapters in Hilchos Chametz
Umatzah, where the Rambam mentions the obligation to eat
Matzah, Marror, to relate the story of Yetzias Mitzrayim, Charoses,
the 4 cups. The Rav noted that even though the Rambam does not
dwell on the Mitzvah to eat the Korban Pesach in Hilchos Chametz
Umatzah, which is dealt with at length in Hilchos Korban Pesach, he
still mentions it in passing in connection with the obligation of
eating Marror. Therefore the Rambam uses the term Aylu, which
includes the Korban Pesach as well, even though he mentioned it
only in passing.
As noted above, the Rambam uses the word Seder. The Gemara
does not mention this term in connection with the obligations of the
night. The Rambam uses the term Seder in connection with the
Mitzvos that were performed on Yom Kippur. Now there is no doubt
that if the Kohen Gadol performs any part of the service out of the
specified order he disqualifies the entire process. However the Rav
raised the question as to whether the term Seder, when used in
connection to Pesach, also stipulates a specific order to follow. For
example, would someone who ate and recited Bircas Hamazon on a
cup of wine and then recited the Haggadah on another cup of wine

27
fulfill his obligations? In other words, he performs the Mitzvos
connected with the third cup of wine on the second, and the
obligations associated with the third cup of wine on the second cup.
The Rav stated that even though he did it out of order, he has
fulfilled the obligation to eat Matzah and Marror on the night of the
fifteenth. However, he will be lacking the fulfillment of another
facet of the Mitzvah, that of Pesach Matzah Umarror as part of the
obligation of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim. Rabban Gamliel teaches us
that one must recite the significance of Pesach, Matzah and Marror
before eating them.
The notion that Matzah and Marror are included in the Sippur
Yetzias Mitzrayim can be seen from several areas:
1) Many Rishonim explain the statement of Rabbi Eliezer Ben
Azaryah that limits the time one may eat Matzah till midnight,
which is the final time for eating the Korban Pesach, as also limiting
the Mitzvah of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim to Chatzos as well.
2) The Ramban says (Berachos, Milchamos) that one who does not
recite the statements of Rabban Gamliel prior to eating Matzah and
Marror, lacks fulfillment of his obligation in the most acceptable
way. In other words, he is missing the Kiyum of Sippur Yetzias
Mitzrayim through the eating of Matzah and Marror. This is based
on the statement in the Haggadah that one must recite these
things at the time that Matzah and Marror are laid out before you.
3) The Rambam states explicitly (Hilchos Chametz Umatzah 7:10)
that Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim is not just an obligation to speak
about it, but one must take steps to demonstrate that he also left
Egypt on this night. Examples of this are the drinking of the 4 cups
of wine and the requirement to eat in a leaning position. In both
cases he is demonstrating the freedom that he now enjoys.
4) According to most Rishonim, one is required to drink the 4 cups
while leaning. All Rishonim agree that Matzah must be eaten in a
leaning position. If a person did not lean while eating Matzah he
must repeat it again. Since the person has obviously fulfilled the
obligation to eat Matzah on the night of the fifteenth, why must he
repeat the Mitzvah again? Because in order to fulfill the additional
requirement of eating Matzah as part of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim,
he must eat the Matzah while reclining.
Now, what if he recites the Haggadah on the first cup and recites
Kiddush on the second? The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 472:1)
states that one must wait till nightfall before reciting Kiddush on
Pesach night. The Magen Avraham and the Taz both explain the
reason for this is because Kiddush is also one of the 4 cups of wine
which must be drunk at the proper time when one may also eat
Matzah, which is at night. In addition, one may not recite Kiddush
before nightfall, even if he intends to wait till after nightfall to drink

28
the wine. We see from this that there are 2 aspects to the Mitzvah
of Kiddush on Pesach night:
1) The mitzvah of Kiddush associated with Zachor, like on Friday
night and all other Yomim Tovim.
2) It fulfills one of the aspects of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim. The Rav
noted that the Rambam mentions (Hilchos Chametz Umatzah 7:4)
that one must begin with Genus and end with Shevach. The
Rambam says that we have to mention that Hashem separated us
and brought us close to Him. Where do we find the notion that
Hashem separated us? The Rav said that the selection of Yisrael by
Hashem is part of the theme of Kiddush. Kiddush is a key part of
the Mitzvah of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim.
The Rambam (Hilchos Chametz Umatzah 7:1) says that the Mitzvah
of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim is similar to the Mitzvah of Kiddush on
Shabbos that is based on Zachor Es Yom Hashabbos. The Rav asked
why does the Rambam compare the two? The Rav answered that
Kiddush on Shabbos declares and dedicates the upcoming night
and day with the sanctity of the Shabbos. Kiddush on Pesach night
declares and dedicates the evening to the Mitzva of Sippur Yetzias
Mitzrayim. Therefore it must precede the actual telling of the story
which takes place on the second cup, after Kiddush has beed
recited. So the Rav concluded that the order of the first 2 cups of
wine is specific and must be followed in sequence.
The Rav asked if the third and fourth cups of wine must also be
performed in order. The Mishneh says they pour for him the third
cup of wine and he recites Bircas Hamazon. On the fourth cup he
completes the Hallel. The third cup of wine is recited over the
concept of Hodaah, we thank Hashem for all he has done, while the
fourth is recited over Shevach, praise to Hashem. Bircas Hamazon
on Pesach night takes on a different characteristic than during the
rest of the year. Otherwise, it would not have been included in the
4 cups. On Pesach, Bircas Hamazon has another role of Sippur
Yetzias Mitzrayim, we thank Hashem for redeeming us from Egypt.
Prior to the conclusion of Maggid, we say Lefikach, therefore we are
obligated to thank Hashem and to praise Him. The Hodaah is for
the past, for the redemption from Egypt. Hallel, on the other hand,
is for the future redemption which is recited over the fourth cup of
wine and culminates with Nishmas, which is praise to Hashem for
the upcoming redemption that we hope will come soon. (We find in
Tehillim the concept of thanking Hashem in advance, Vaani
Bchasdecha Batachti Yagel Lebie Byeshuasecha, thanking Hashem
now for redemption that will come in the future.)
The Gemara (Pesachim 117a) says that the prophets established
the practice of reciting Hallel as thanks to Hashem whenever the
Jewish People are saved from a looming catastrophe, that should
not befall them. From this we see that it is permissible to pray and

29
recite Hallel as an insurance policy and as prayer even before a
tragedy occurs. (Note that Rashi did not have the exact same text
as we do, and was of the opinion that Hallel is recited only upon
delivery from a crisis.)
The various chapters of Hallel fall into the following categories:
1) Shevach (see the first 2 chapters of Hallel)
2) Tefila (see Lo Lanu, Ana Hashem)
3) Bitachon (see Hashem Zecharanu)
These three themes are scattered throughout the other chapters of
Hallel. Before we can continue with the prayers expressing our
confidence in the future we must first make sure to fully thank
Hashem for the favors we have already received. Only then can we
turn to Shevach, and thank Hashem for the favors that we will
receive.
So from the above discussion, it is clear that the Rambam's uses
the term Seder to indicate a strict order that must be adhered to,
similar to his use of the term in Avodas Yom Hakippurim.
The Rav continued to analyze the Rambam (Hilchos Chametz
Umatzah 8:1). According to the Rambam there is a Mitzvah for
everyone, including women, to drink the 4 cups. The Rambam
previously mentioned this as well (Hilchos Chametz Umatzah 7:7).
Tosfos (Pesachim 99b) disagrees and says that one person can be
Motzi others, and that they do not have to all drink the 4 cups.
Tosfos is of the opinion that the important aspect of the 4 cups is
the reciting of the blessings over the cups of wine, not necessarily
the drinking of the wine.
The Rambam in describing the process of the 4 cups of wine
paraphrases to a large degree the Mishnayos in Arvei Pesachim.
Since the Mishna did not simply start with Kiddush, but rather with
Meziga, apparently Meziga plays an important role. The Mishna
mentions Meziga by the first 3 cups of wine but not the fourth.
Perhaps one might say, that since the third and fourth cups of wine
are discussed in the same Mishna, the term Meziga though
mentioned once, applies to both. However the Rambam mentions
Meziga by the fourth cup, including the third cup in his discussion
of Bircas Hamazon. Apparently the Rambam had a different text of
the Mishna than we do. The Rav asked if there was a difference
between the texts. Also, the Rav wanted to understand why the
Rambam introduces the Meziga of Kiddush with the word B'techila,
(at the outset).
The Rav explained that the term B'techila teaches us that the
Meziga is part of the Mitzvos of the night of Pesach. It is the
beginning of the seder. If one set up a cup of wine earlier in the day
on the fourteenth for use at the seder, he would be lacking in the
complete fulfillment of the seder. It is also clear from the second
cup that Meziga is an integral part of the seder, as the Mezigas Kos

30
Shayni, pouring of the second cup of wine, is a prerequisite for the
son to ask the 4 questions. The Meziga is necessary to arouse the
curiosity of the child so that he will ask his father the questions.
(See Rashi in Pesachim 116, where he implies that the pouring of
the wine is what obligates the son to ask at that point). The Meziga
is actually a part of the Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim. Vehigadta Lvincha
requires us to actively arouse the curiosity of the children so they
will be moved to ask questions. The formal Meziga is one of the
added nuances we use to make sure the child notices that this
night is truly distinct from all others.
The Rav explained that Vehigadta Lvincha teaches us that we must
explain to our children the events that took place in the past to
gain our freedom. The first 3 cups concentrate on telling about the
redemption from Egypt, therefore Meziga is important as a part of
Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim. However the fourth cup refers to the
eventual, ultimate redemption. This topic is not part of Sippur
Yetzias Mitzrayim and therefore the fourth cup, according to our
text, does not require Meziga. (according to the Rav, all three cups
that require Meziga are intended to stimulate the children to ask,
even though the third one is done after the formal Sippur Yetzias
Mitzrayim is concluded.)
The Rav explained that according to the Rambam, that the fourth
cup requires Meziga, the Mitzva of Vehigadta Lvincha extends to
the future redemption as well as the exodus from Egypt. We are
teaching our children that just like Hashem took us out of Egypt, he
will take us out of Galus and redeem us again in the near future.
Why according to the Rambam is there no Meziga by the third cup?
The Rav explained that since the pouring of the third cup takes
place within the context of the meal, it does not stir the curiosity of
the children. Since the third cup does not affect Sippur Yetzias
Mitzrayim, there is no need to mention Meziga with it.
___________________________________________________________
This summary is Copyright 1997 by Dr. Israel Rivkin and Josh
Rapps, Edison, N.J. Permission to reprint and distribute, with this
notice, is hereby granted.

bshalach.98 Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT"L on Parshas

Bshalach (Shiur date: 2/9/71)
"And Moshe and Aaron told Bnay Yisrael: in the evening you will
know that Hashem took you out of Egypt. And in the morning you
will see the glory of Hashem etc." (Shemos 16:6-7).
The Ibn Ezra interprets these verses to mean that via the events of
the evening and the morning you will come to know that Hashem
took you out of Egypt and you will see the glory of Hashem.
Rashi says that the difference in the presentation of the Manna and
the Slav was related to the appropriateness of the request. The

31
request for Manna was a legitimate request for a basic necessity,
hence it was granted by day, representing a pleasant countenance
(Bsever Panim Yafos). However the request for meat was a desire
for a luxury, something they should not have asked for in the
desert. Therefore it was granted at night, representing Panim
Chashechos, a dark, less receptive demeanor. The Rav interpreted
the first 2 verses of Bircas Kohanim in this manner. The blessings of
Yevarechecha and Vyishmerecha can be granted in a way that is
simple and easy for the recipient to accept. They may also be
granted in a way that may be accompanied by some degree of
hardship. The second verse of Yaer Hashem is the blessing that the
Yevarechecha and Vyishmerecha just granted in the previous verse
should occur Bpanim Maeyros, with a pleasant and shining
demeanor, without any associated difficulties. Bnay Yisrael's
request was also inappropriate in that they requested luxury before
the necessity, "As we sat by the fleshpots and ate bread till we
were sated". The Manna was granted with Panim Maeyros (both
Yevarechecha and Yaer) because it was a legitimate request for a
basic staple, while the Slav, an out of order request for a luxury
that was not necessary, was granted with Panim Chashechos (with
associated hardship, only with Yevarechecha).
The Ramban says that the difference between the Manna and the
Slav was the ease with which each miracle was perceived. The Slav
was carried on the wind, and to the untrained eye might have
appeared to be an act of nature. Only those that realized that this
was a gift from Hashem appreciated the miracle that occurred.
Hence the use of the word Vyedatem, and you shall know or
understand the great hidden miracle performed by Hashem.
However the Manna was an open miracle for all to see as it was
Yesh M'ayin, ex nihilo, all Bnay Yisrael realized that this was truly a
miraculous event. Therefore the word Ureysem, and you shall see,
the great miracle performed by Hashem for you, as the greatness
of the miracle will be evident to all.
The Rav explained that Rashi's interpretation carries a practical
implication for us all: one prays for that which he absolutely needs.
One should not pray for frivolous things. Man has the right to pray
for the basics. This is seen from the story of Akilas the convert who
asked Rabbi Eliezer (Breishis Rabba 70:5) if Hashem loves the
convert why does He provide the convert only with bread and
clothing? Rabbi Eliezer answered that the convert is no worse off
than Jacob who prayed for bread to eat and clothing to wear. Jacob
prayed only for the basics. Our prayers should also be for the
basics. The Rambam refers to Shemoneh Esray as the place where
man asks Hashem to provide for his basic needs. It is inappropriate
to request luxuries in the Amidah. The Rav said that King David
(Psalms 131) was careful not to ask for his personal luxuries in

32
Tefilah. However, Klal Yisrael has no limits on what it can ask for [as
long as it asks appropriately, which was not the case with the
request for meat in Parshas Bshalach].
The Rav continued the thought of the Ramban regarding Erev and
Boker. Erev represents the time since the destruction of the Temple
and our long exile. The time of Erev is most closely associatedwith
Hester Panim, Hashem remains hidden from us and we must try
very hard to find Him.
The untrained eye might assume that nature and the normal
course of events are responsible for all that has happened to the
Jews and the world during these years of Hester Panim. Only the
discriminating faithful recognize (Vyedatem) that everything
happens only through the will of Hashem. In the time of Moshiach,
when it will be Boker, all will see (Ureysem) the hand of Hashem
and recognize His greatness.
__________________________________________________________
This summary is copyright 1998 by Dr. Israel Rivkin and Josh Rapps,
Edison, N.J. Permission to distribute this summary, with this notice
is granted.

Bshalach Shiur Harav on Parshas Bshalach

"Ashira L'Hashem Ki Gao Ga'ah". Rashi's first interpretation is to
mention the Targum Unkelus, who explains the verse as "I will sing
to Hashem because (or since) he is above all". Rashi adds an
additional interpretation: the praise that is appropriate to offer
Hashem is infinite and due to human limitations it is always
incomplete, as opposed to a mortal king who is praised even
though he is found wanting of deeds and not deserving of praise.
According to the second interpretation offered by Rashi, Moshe
was indicating that Bnay Yisrael lacked sufficient praise to offer
Hashem. This is the same concept found in the Gemara (Megilla
25a) that restricts our praise of Hashem in our Tefilah to Ha'kel
Hagadol Hagibor V'hanora. This limitation is so stringent that
anyone who adds praises of Hashem beyond that which the Anshei
Kneses Hagedolah established is viewed negatively based on the
verse L'chah Dumiah Tehila (Megilla 18a).

The second interpretation of Rashi defines the word Ki as "even

though", or "despite" (similar to the use of Ki Karov Hu, that
Hashem did not lead Bnay Yisrael through the Land of Plishtim
EVEN THOUGH it was closer). The Passuk is saying that I will sing to
Hashem EVEN THOUGH he is exalted above all and I can't possibly
sing all His praises. Based on the above mentioned restriction that
limits the praise we may offer Hashem, how did Bnay Yisrael and
Moshe have the right to offer the additional praise of Shiras
Hayam?

33
The Gemara (Megilla 25a, Berachos 33b) says that had the Anshei
Knesses Hagedolah not incorporated the words Ha'kel Hagadol
Hagibor V'hanora into our Tefilos, we would not have been able to
utter these words of praise of Hashem either. Their right to
incorporate these words was based on Moshe using these words in
praise of Hashem (Devarim 10:17). However we still need to
understand the fundamental source of permission (Mattir) to pray,
on which even Moshe relied to utter these praises.
The Rav offered 3 explanations of the Mattir of Shira, each derived
from Shiras Moshe (Note: The Rav used Tefilah and Shira
interchangeably in much of this shiur):
The first explanation is based on the Rambam (Note: The Rav
mentioned Hilchos Berachos but did not specify the Halacha. See
1:3.). Man has an instinctive need to give thanks and recognition to
someone who performs an act of kindness towards him. As pertains
to Hashem, this natural urge is translated into praise to Hashem for
all His acts of kindness that He does for man on a continuous basis.
Limited man is generally enjoined from praising Hashem because
he can not complete the praises of Hashem. However, Moshe and
Bnay Yisrael at that moment on the banks of the Yam Suf were
incapable of controlling their need to sing the praise of Hashem for
His many miracles and acts of kindness towards them. There was
an urge for Bnay Yisrael to recite Shira and thank Hashem that
could not be stifled (similar to the uncontrollable urge felt by
Joseph when he revealed himself to his brothers).
This uncontrollable need to thank Hashem is also the basis of
permission (Mattir) for our Tefilos in general. Man is distinguished
from the animal kingdom by his ability and need to pray. Even
though man recognizes the inadequacy of his Tefilos, even before
he offers them (Ki Gaoh Gaah), he instinctively must offer them
anyway (Azi Vzimaras Kah). This uncontrollable need to thank
Hashem serves as the Mattir for Shira and Tefilah.
The Rav offered a second suggestion as to what is the Mattir for
Shiras Hayam: How did Moshe know that Shira is permissible?
Shiras Hayam required a precedent. Moshe had a tradition from
father to son back to Avraham Avinu, that the Jewish Nation is a
people that offers prayer and praise to Hashem in times of need
and times of joy. The Gemara (Berachos 26b) says that our fore-
fathers established the various Tefilos that we have. The intention
of the Gemara is not merely to present a history lesson. Rather, it is
to show us that because they established the Tefilos (Shacharis,
Mincha and Maariv), we too are permitted to pray accordingly. As
Moshe mentioned in the Shira, Elokay Avi V'aromimenhu, just as
my fore-fathers before me offered Shira to Hashem, so too will I.
The Rav offered a third possibility as to what is the Mattir for Shira
based on the Rambam (Note: Source believed to be Moreh

34
Nevuchim). As mentioned in the Gemara (Megilla 25a), only one
who is capable of reciting all the praises of Hashem may praise Him
(Mi Y'mallel Gevuros Hashem Yashmia Kol Tehilaso, Tehillim 106:2).
This of course is impossible for mortals. Yet the prophets often
revealed the praise of Hashem (e.g. Rachum Vchanun). These
revelations were intended to teach us the ways.

Bshalach Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT'L on Parshas Bshalach

(Shiur Date: 2/5/74)
The Torah says that Moshe charged Yehoshua with the
responsibility of selecting an army to battle with Amalek. The
Ramban comments that even though the Torah says in Parshas
Shlach that Moshe called Hoshea Bin Nun Yehoshua, this name
change occurred previously, at the time that Yehoshua came to be
Moshe's devoted student. When Yehoshua came to Moshe and he
realized the potential of his student, he changed his name by
adding the letter Yud. The Midrash that says that the Yud
represented the prayer that Hashem should save Joshua from the
evil plans of the spies. From their earliest association Moshe
realized that Yehoshua would be among those that would be sent to
spy on the land and he added the letter Yud to his name so that
Hashem would save him from being ensnared by the terrible plans
of the spies.
The Rav explained the importance of the name change from
Hoshea to Yehoshua. The Midrash says that when Hashem changed
Avram's and Sary's names by removing the Yud from Sary and
replacing it with a Hay and adding a Hay to Avraham, the Yud
complained. Hashem consoled the Yud by promising that it would
be added to the name of another great personality Hoshea,
changing his name to Yehoshua. The Rav noted that this was an
amazing Midrash and explained it as follows.
The change in name for Avram represented a major change in the
personality of Avram. The Mishna in Bikurim states that a convert
may bring Bikurim and state the word Avoseinu because Avraham
was Av Hamon Goyim, the father of the multitude of nations. For
this reason a convert may daven Shemoneh Esray and say Elokeinu
Valokay Avoseinu.
The Rambam points out (Hilchos Avoda Zarah) that Avraham had a
major impact on the people of his generation, having converted
tens of thousands to recognize the One Creator of the universe.
The letter Hay was added to represent Avraham as the externally
visible and accessible spiritual father to all. He was not someone
who was capable of remaining hidden inside his tent. The Hay
represents an openness, the Pesach Haohel, the door of the tent,
where Avraham always sat, always seeking out people to help and
bring them closer to the Shechina. The Hay symbolizes Hispashtus,

35
a willingness to extend oneself to all. Simply put Avraham was a
leader who epitomized Chesed, as such he was always available to
his people.
The letter Yud on the other hand represents the possessive form
(my chair kisie, my house baysie). It shows the private, hidden part
of the person who separates himself from the public. He separates
himself because he wants to associate himself completely with
Hashem, to the exclusion of all others. It is the Midas Hagevurah,
Midas Hatzimtzum of minimizing accessibility.
There are 2 distinct dimensions to a leader: his public and private
personalities. On the one hand, the leader must exemplify Chesed
to all, and be front and center before the people and sharing in
their spiritual and daily experiences. We find that by Krias Yam Suf
Moshe and Bnay Yisrael sang praise to Hashem. Also by Mattan
Torah, Moshe took the people out towards Hashem because he also
wanted to be part of the spiritual experience of Kabbalas Hatorah
at Har Sinai. In these cases Moshe was the public leader who stood
before the people and was their teacher, leader and guide who
participated in their experiences as a people.
On the other hand, a leader must possess the attribute of
Gevurah, Tzimtzum, to separate himself from others in order that
he might excel in his personal relationship with Hashem. Again we
find that Moshe would set up the Ohel Moed outside of the camp of
the people as a place where he could communicate with Hashem,
away from all others. He could not be in the public eye at all times.
There is a time and place for both.
These attributes are seen in Gedolei Yisrael. In some cases, a Gadol
may excel in one over the other. The Rav related that he heard
from his father who received a tradition from his father that the
Vilna Gaon did not say formal shiurim. For the year after the
passing of his mother he said shiurim in Mishnayos Zeraim and
Taharos, however few if any were capable of keeping up with his
brilliance and intellect. The students who heard these shiurim
collected them as Shenos Eliahu on Zeraim and Eliahu Rabbah on
Taharos. People think of Reb Chaim Volozhin as the Talmid of the
Gaon. In reality Reb Chaim's access to the Gaon was that he would
assemble questions for the Gaon and twice a year he would present
them to the Gaon for a couple of hours at a time. Otherwise the
Gaon was completely occupied with his own studying. The Gaon
represented the Yud that symbolizes the Midas Hatzimtzum. On the
other hand, the Baal Shem Tov represented the Midas Hachesed as
the publicly available leader, personifying the Hay of Hispashtus.
Yehoshua already possessed the critical dimension of a leader, the
Hay of Hispashtus, he was a man of the people. His personal
predilection was towards the Midas Hachesed. Moshe recognized
this and wanted to add the Midas Hatzimtzum to him as well. There

36
is a time and place for both attributes in a leader. Therefore the
Yud was added to the Hay that was already part of his name. The
benefit of this addition to Yehoshua's personality was evident after
the episode of the Meraglim. Without the reinforcement of the
Midas Hagevurah, Yehoshua's strong sense of being a man of the
people might have led him to be engulfed by their evil plan. The
Yud symbolized his newly found inner strength to withdraw from
the group and to be firm and true in his convictions that Bnay
Yisrael could and would conquer Eretz Canaan with the help of
Hashem. ___________________________________________________________
This summary is Copyright 1997 by Dr. Israel Rivkin and Josh
Rapps, Edison, N.J. Permission to reprint and distribute, with this
notice, is hereby granted.

haggadah1.99

Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT"L on Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim

(Shiur date: 1969)

The Rav observed that, at times, the recitations comprising the

Haggadah appear at first glance to lack continuity and structure.
The Rav focused on the analysis of the Maggid portion of the
Haggadah, from Mah Nishtanah through the concluding blessing of
Go'al Yisrael. The Rambam refers to this section as the Haggadah,
which forms a unique composite of recitations. The sections
concluding the Hallel after Bircas Hamazon and Nishmas are not
unique to the night of Pesach, as they are recited on the various
festivals and every Shabbos morning.

The Rav focused on the structure of the Haggadah, dividing Maggid

into 3 sections, beginning with Mah Nishtanah/Avadim Hayinu and
concluding with Go'al Yisrael, and enumerated and examined them
in reverse order. We have the section that begins with Bchal Dor
Vador (in every generation the Jew must view himself as if he just
left Egypt...) concluding with the first 2 sections of Hallel, hymnal
praise to Hashem.
The middle section comprises the narrative portion from Arami
Oved Avi and concludes with the description of Pesach, Matzah and
Marror based on the statements of Rabban Gamliel which is
included as part of the narrative. The first section presents the
philosophical principles that form the root and foundation of the
Mitzvas Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim. Without these postulates it would
be impossible to conduct Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim. The first section

37
also includes some Halacha as well as it pertains to the obligations
of the night.

The Rav noted that we split Hallel into 2 parts. The first 2 sections
are recited at the conclusion of Maggid while the remainder is
recited after Bircas Hamazon. Why separate the sections of Hallel
on the night of Pesach when we never make such a separation at
any other time in the year that we recite Hallel? Why leave some of
it for recitation over the fourth cup? What is unique or special about
the 2 sections we include in Maggid relative to the rest of Hallel?

The Rav explained that the first 2 sections are completely

dedicated to thanksgiving and praise of Hashem. It is void of any
request or petition on the part of man to Hashem. These sections
mention the selection of Bnay Yisrael as the chosen nation. They fit
comfortably into the context of the Haggadah section. The
remaining sections of Hallel introduce supplication together with
praise. For example, the chapter of Min Hamaytzar juxtaposes the
verses Zeh Hayom with Ana Hashem Hoshiya Na, praise with
supplication. The focus of these verses is that although we have
been delivered and we rejoice on this day, we can't escape the fact
that we are not completely free. There are still enemies that
surround and threaten us and we pray to Hashem for salvation. In
the section of Lo Lanu, we express the greatness of Hashem but we
juxtapose it with the scoffing of the nations of the world mocking us
to point out the location of Hashem. Similarly, the themes of praise
and supplication can be seen in the section of Ahavti. This
juxtaposition of praise and supplication is noted in the Mishna as
the format of praying to Hashem. We express gratitude for the past
and supplication for the future. Man is never secure. Happiness
today does not guarantee happiness tomorrow.

Hallel is split up on the night of Pesach because after we tell the

story
Of the exodus, we have an obligation to praise Hashem in a format
that is complete praise without any petition. We suspend our
normal method of prayer, removing all non-praise elements. We do
not exclaim Zeh Hayom Asah Hashem in the Maggid section, which
would appear to be very appropriate at this point on the night of
great joy, because it continues with the petition of Ana Hashem. We
focus at this point completely on the praise of Hashem which is the
theme of the first 2 chapters of Hallel.
The conclusion of Hallel, recited over the fourth cup, is a mixture of
Joy with an outcry of pain. Tefila plus Shevach. At the very moment
we reach the height of joy we cry out in pain. The structure of Hallel
is dialectical in approach: the happy Jew followed by the desperate

38
Jew. These sections are specifically chosen for the fourth cup,
because they do not mention the exodus from Egypt, rather they
refer to our pain and longing for the ultimate redemption that will
come with Moshiach. We express this yearning even though we are
in a celebratory mood this evening. The fourth cup is devoted to
the idea that in the Messianic Period, all pledges on the part of
Hashem to Bnay Yisrael will be fulfilled.

As mentioned before, the narrative section begins with Arami Oved

Avi and concludes with the interpretation of Rabban Gamliel's
statement on Pesach Matzah and Marror. Why were the sections
based on the explanation of Arami Oved Avi selected to form the
core of the Haggadah? If the main purpose is to tell the story of the
exodus, why don't we simply read the sections in the Torah from
Parshas Shmos through Parshas Bo which tell the story of the
exodus in detail? After all the Haggadah does not really contain
extensive stories of the exodus. Our Maggid is barely a synopsis of
the events of the exodus. Indeed, the Karaites would read the
stories from the Torah on the night of Pesach as their "Haggadah".
Why select a portion from Sefer Dvarim instead of a section from
Sefer Shmos as the central part of Maggid?

The Rav explained: Arami Oved Avi is related to the Mitzvah of

Bikurim (bringing the first fruits to the temple). There were 2
Mitzvos associated with Bikurim: 1) the actual bringing of the
Bikurim; 2) the recitation of the Parsha of Arami Oved Avi.
Apparently, Chazal felt that there was a common denominator
between Bikurim and Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim. The Rambam and
the Chinuch explain that the main theme behind Mikra Bikurim is to
express gratitude, Hakaras Hatov, to Hashem who gave us the gift
of the land. Hakaras Hatov is also the central theme of Sippur
Yetzias Mitzrayim, as we recite Lfikach Anachnu Chayavim Lhodos
(therefore we are obligated to thank Hashem...). In order to express
thanks to Hashem for all the miracles that He performed for us, we
have to tell the story of the exodus. The gift of the land was the
fulfillment of the fifth form of Geulah (redemption), V'hayvaysi (and
I will usher you in to the land). The Jew is obligated to thank
Hashem not only for the fulfillment of the fifth form of Geulah, but
for the other 4 as well, Vhotzaysi (and I will take you out of Egypt),
Hhitzalti (and I will Rescue you), Vgoalti (and I will redeem you),
Vlokachti (and I will take you Unto me as a nation), which refer to
the events of the exodus.
The obligation to thank Hashem as part of Mikra Bikurim is equated
with the obligation to thank Hashem for the exodus on the night of
Pesach. If the Torah formulated the Parsha of Arami Oved Avi as the
proper format to express gratitude to Hashem for the exodus and

39
the gift of the land, then the Parsha must be recited in both cases,
on the night of Pesach and upon bringing Bikurim. However, there
is a difference in emphasis between the 2 recitations. For Mikra
Bikurim, we stress the aspect of having been brought into the land
and receiving it as a gift, while for Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim, we
focus on the aspects surrounding our enslavement and redemption
from Egypt.

On the night of Pesach we are not all that interested in the details
of The exodus and the events that led up to it. For instance, we
don't devote much text and time to the suffering of the Jews in
Egypt, or to the plagues that were visited upon the Egyptians.
Arami Oved Avi serves the purpose of thanking Hashem for our
freedom and the ultimate gift of Eretz Yisrael. The focus of the
evening is thanks to Hashem as expressed through the Mitzvah of
Vhigadta Lvincha, and you shall teach your child. Would not
additional details of the story inspire me to thank Hashem even
more? The answer is that the Torah was not as interested in the
telling of he story as much as in the study of the story. Otherwise,
we would have read the early chapters of Sefer Shmos which give
all the details of the bondage and exodus of the people.

There is a difference between narrating a story and studying a

story.
Narration relates past events. However when I study past events, I
appreciate the significance of these events and their impact on me.
A good study of history does not include every last detail. Rather,
Lhavdil, the historian tries to capture that which is important
outside of the Context of time and space. This approach keeps the
events alive for us today. That is why we spend very little time
describing the plagues. Our focus is on the greatness of Hashem,
who took us out of Egypt. We are interested in the moral motives of
the exodus that are still with us today.
Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim simply put is a Mitzvah of Torah study. We
are obligated to study not only the events of the exodus, but the
laws of the festival as well. The Tosefta quotes a slightly different
version of the story in Haggadah of the sages that were gathered in
Bnay Brak and were involved all night in Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim.
The Tosefta states that they were studying the laws of Pesach that
night. The study of this night requires us to immerse ourselves in
Torah Shbeal Peh, to examine and interpret each and every word of
Arami Oved Avi. This Parsha is examined not as an abstract event
in the past but as something that impacts us here and now. With
this approach we can understand many aspects of the structure of
the Haggadah. For example, why do we introduce many of the

40
sections with questions, e.g. Matzah Zu? Because Talmud Torah is
conducted through a process of question and answer.
The Rambam says that anyone who devotes extended time to
interpreting the Parsha of Arami Oved Avi is praised because this is
the essence of Torah study, it is not simply a time of story telling.
Even though the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah applies all year, on
Pesach night there is an extra Mitzvah to study all the aspects of
Yetzias Mitzrayim.

The answer of Avadim Hayinu, we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt,

is the answer written in Sefer Devarim (Parshas Vaeschanan) that is
given to the wise son. We say Vayotzianu, and Hashem took us out
of Egypt.
The exodus happened thousands of years ago, why do we include
ourselves in this event? This is the principle of Bchal Dor Vdor, in
each generation, we are obligated to view ourselves as if we just
left Egypt. Before we begin to develop the theme of Yetzias
Mitzrayim and its study, we lay down the premise of full
identification with Jews of past generations and the events they
encountered. Not only do we remember the events, but we relive
and reenact, restage and re-experience these events. The Jew is
closer to his past and history than any other nation. The best
example is his attachment to Eretz Yisrael. The memory of the Jew
is both factual and experiential. Not only do we remember the
destruction of the temple, but we relive it each year during the 3
weeks and on Tisha Bav. The past does not die for the Jew. The
focus of our celebration is Vayotzianu, it impacts us as much as our
forefathers. Chachmay Hakaballah describe the life of man as an
experience of various levels and stages of slavery. Man has many
masters in his lifetime, sometimes he himself (unknowingly) is
both the master and slave. Through the story of the exodus we
relive the individual and national redemption.

Instead of Avadim Hayinu L'Pharoh, we might have substituted the

phrase Avday Pharaoh, we were the slaves of Paroh. The latter
phrase would imply that the Jew lost his identity, his personality,
his quest for freedom. It would give the impression that all the Jew
knew was slavery and the service of his master. Avadim Hayinu
L'Pharoh says that the social status of the Jew was that of a slave to
Paroh. But slavery was an external manifestation. Internally, the
Jew remained the descendant of the patriarchs and yearned for the
day that he would be free. We find the phrase Avday Hashem, the
slaves of God, which defines the Jew in terms of his total
commitment to serve Hashem. Slavery can be both a social as well
as a psychological institution. We may have been slaves to Paroh,
but we always resented the servitude.

41
When Moshe encountered the burning bush, the Torah describes
the event as the bush was burning in fire, but the bush was not
consumed.
Rashi interprets the words Labas Aish as 1) the flame 2) the fire
was in the heart, or center of the bush. The exterior of the bush
was not on fire.
Many interpret Moshe's question as "why is the bush not
consumed"?
Another interpretation of his question is why does the fire remain in
the middle, why doesn't it spread outward? The angel of God spoke
to Moshe from within the heart of the bush, as if there were
concentric circles comprising the extremities of the bush, the
center of the bush within that, and the angel at the burning
epicenter. What is the symbolism of the bush?

The Rav explained that even though there was an intense fire at its
core, the fire did not affect the rest of the bush. The same was true
of the Jew in Egypt. Hashem was showing Moshe that while
externally they are the slaves to Paroh, internally they are yearning
to be free and their aspirations are not those of slaves. In the
center of the personality of the Jew, the fire burns. Often the fire
does not extend beyond the core and leaves the outer parts of the
Jew cold. Moshe's experiences with Bnay Yisrael led him to doubt
their worthiness and readiness to be free. The bush showed him
that it is possible for one bush among many to be different and
unique, to have a flame ablaze inside while outwardly appearing to
be unaffected. God showed Moshe that the Jew is the same as this
bush. He is surrounded by Egyptians and externally he appears to
have fit into his niche, yet the internal flame can be exposed to
reveal the true personality of the Jew. Throughout the ages the Jew
has been accused of various characteristics that, externally, have
pained him very negatively. The burning bush says that the Jew
may be abused externally, but internally he remains pure and
aflame seeking Hashem.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1999, Josh Rapps and Israel Rivkin, Edison, NJ. Permission
to reprint this Shiur, with this notice, is granted. To subscribe to this
service, send email to listproc@shamash.org with the following
message:
subscribe mj-ravtorah firstname lastname.

Subject:
Shiur Harav Soloveichik ZT"L on Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim - 2
Date:

42
 Tue, 30 Mar 1999 14:06 EST

haggadah2.99

Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT"L on Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim - 2

(Shiur date unknown)

Sippur, as in Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim, comes from the word Saper,

the Same root that includes Sofer, which is Hebrew for scribe. A
scribe is not the same as a simple writer. Throughout Tanach the
word Sofer is used to indicate that the position of scribe was one of
importance, for example Sofrei Hamelech in Megilas Esther. In
Talmudic parlance, Sofer means a Talmid Chacham, a scholar. In
contrast to Divray Torah we have the term Divrei Sofrim, which are
the teachings of the scholars. There are many examples in the
Talmud where the word Sofer refers to the scholar. Apparently the
Hebrew language scribe or scholar is distinguished by his ability to
write. A Talmid Chacham must be capable of writing.
Historically, when a Jew showed the ability to write, he was
accepted as a scholar. The statements of the transmitters of
learning, the Maatikay Hashemuah, are referred to as Divray
Sofrim.
The definition of Sippur goes beyond simple oral story telling, but it
includes the ability to tell a story through writing it down. The word
Sefer, book, derives from the same root, L'Saper, to tell a story. In
Hebrew, writing and oral communication are both included in the
framework of the root word Saper. The Gemara says that Megilas
Esther refers to itself first as an Igeres, letter, and later as a Sefer,
a book. There are significant differences between these 2 forms of
writing. A letter is written for a short term purpose. It does not
need to be written on parchment; it can be missing letters and may
not be complete yet it still conveys the gist of the story. In contrast,
a Sefer is intended to transmit the story to future generations. It
requires parchment and if even one little letter is missing it is
halachically voided. For example, the prophet commanded the
people to write contracts on their land in a Sefer and place them in
earthen vessels so that they may last a long time. Sefer documents
an event for present and future generations. Another example:
Hashem commanded Moshe to document the eternal conflict
between God and Amalek in the Sefer and transmit it to Joshua.
This message could only be transmitted through a Sefer.

Chazal note that a major Kabbalah principle is that Hashem created

the world through acts of Kesiva, writing. For example, the notion of

43
writing is found by the 10 commandments that were written Betzba
Elokim, K'vayachol, by the finger of God. The Sefer Hayetzira
maintains that the world was created through 3 Seforim (forms of
the word Saper): B'sfor, B'sippur U'Bsefer, through counting,
relating a story and through the book. We know from the Torah that
Hashem wrote the Luchos, but how does the Sefer Yetzira know
that the world was created through these 3 forms of the word
Saper? According to the Kuzari, when the Torah repeatedly
mentions Vayomer Elokim, it is referring to the act of Sippur by
Hashem. The result of this Sippur was the Sefer, all of creation. It
was the word of God that created the world and is embedded in
nature and continues to drive it. At the same time, nature must
obey the will of Hashem. If the flowers bloom, the birds fly, man
walks and the heavenly bodies remain in motion it is because this
is the Ratzon Hashem, the will of God. The manifestation of the will
of God was inscribed into every function of nature. According to the
Baal Shem Tov, the word of God, the Vayomer Elokim, that created
everything is as real and ongoing today as it was at the time of
creation, Udvarcha Emes Vkayam Load, and Your words are true
and everlasting.
Chazal valued very highly of the ability to write. Chazal say that
Ksav Vmichtav were among the miraculous things that were
created at twilight of the sixth day prior to the onset of the
Shabbos. Chazal recognized the amazing gift in the ability of man
to to record events that happened thousands of years ago in such
a way as to allow subsequent generations to identify with,
understand and appreciate the thoughts and feelings that moved
the author so many years before. The events of past generations
are alive for us today. For example, when we read in the Torah the
stories of the patriarchs and the 12 tribes, we feel as if we are part
of the actual events that are unfolding before us. We cry with
Joseph when he is sold into slavery by the brothers and we rejoice
with him when he is elevated to the position of Viceroy of Egypt.
We travel with Abraham as he leaves Charan for the unknown land
of Canaan and our hearts skip a beat as Yaakov narrowly departs
with the blessings before Esau enters his father's room. Reading
the written word allows us to span generations in an instant and to
identify with our ancestors. Educators today must make the stories
of the Torah come alive for their students and make them feel as if
they are part of the story and not some impartial bystander.

In contrast, the Rav noted that today, unfortunately, parents and

children can't communicate across a gap of a single generation.
Children of today can't understand or relate to the experiences of
their parents. To many Jews today, the Lech Lecha of their parents,
their life experiences and their Judaism, means nothing to them. In

44
order for us to inject meaning into the stories that we write during
our lives, we must do more than simply put words on paper. We
have to create a climate through which we appreciate all the
events that shaped Jewish history, for example to feel the pain of
the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash or to understand other
events in Jewish history. Today we have many aids to study,
unprecedented numbers of translations of the various texts are
readily available to the masses to assist them in study. However in
too many cases, we have words written on paper, but we lack the
atmosphere of involvement and participation in the events we
study. The greatest Sofer, scribe, is not one who can write on
parchment or paper, but rather the one who can write on the
hearts of living beings and influence their lives. The great scribe is
the one that can transmit a living Torah that passes on The Torah
world of Rabbi Akiva, the Rambam and the Vilna Gaon to the next
generation. This is Torah Shbeal Peh, which is dependant on the
ability of each generation to make these experiences come alive for
the subsequent generation to ensure that the flame of Torah burns
for eternity. The scholars were called Sofrim because they were the
transmitters of the tradition between generations. Their greatest
accomplishment was not the writing of Torah on paper, but rather
etching Torah into the hearts and souls of their students to keep it
alive for subsequent generations, creating living Seforim.
One need not write tomes during his life to earn the title of Sofer.
For example, we have no recorded writings from the Baal Shem Tov.
Yet his vast Torah was spread throughout the world by his living
Seforim, the many students that he taught during his life. Moshe
Rabbeinu was called Safra Rabba D'Yisrael, the great scribe of
Israel. Did Moshe spend his time as a scribe of Sifrei Torah, Tefilin
and Mezuzos (STAM)? We find that Moshe wrote a Sefer Torah
towards the end of his life. Yet he earned the title as the great
scribe in Israel because of the Torah he taught all Bnay Yisrael and
how he inscribed it into the parchment of their hearts and souls so
that they might act as the scribes that would teach the next
generation. Just as the original word of God continues to drive
nature, so to the Torah that Moshe gave Bnay Yisrael in the desert
is as alive for us today as it was thousands of years ago. It is the
ability to transmit from generation to generation, despite great
difficulties, without diluting the message that makes Bnay Yisrael
unique.

Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim is more than telling a story. Vhigadta

L'Bincha means that the father must write the book that will
become his son. It is the obligation of the father to view his son as
a Sefer to be carefully written and not as an Igeres. The obligation
to be the scribe of this book extends well beyond the Seder night to

45
encompass all of life. Bchal Dor V'dor Chayav Adam Liros Es Atzmo
K'ilu Hu Yataza M'Mitzrayim, in every generation the Jew must view
himself as if he has just left Egypt. Man must feel that he has
participated in the entire, collective Jewish experience and he must
inscribe this knowledge into the book that is his child. Sippur
Yetzias Mitzrayim is the book of Jewish existence. The greatest
accomplishment is when a father carefully transmits his
experiences so that he may pass it on intact to his child before he
passes on.
There were many great scholars who were not able to permanently
inscribe themselves into the Sefer that was their children. They
were only able to write an Igeres, a short term note, that their
children quickly erased when they left home. Yet there are simple
parents who succeeded in making a permanent inscription into
their children's personality. They were able to write on the hearts of
their children their Seder, their feelings on Tisha Bav, the beauty of
their Shabbos, the solemnity of their Yom Kippur and their blessing
of their children before Kol Nidrei in a way that made a lasting
impression on the child, an impression that stayed with him
throughout many years of separation and struggle. The Rav asked
why should the scholar fail where the simple person succeeds?

Chazal say that there are 10 synonyms for prophecy, one of which
is the word Masa. There are 2 explanations why Masa refers to
prophecy. The first is that the prophet would raise his voice when
presenting the message of God to the people. The second is the
Rambam in the Guide (Moreh Nvuchim) who explains that Masa is
used to indicate that prophecy was a heavy load for the prophet to
bear. The essence of prophecy is that it is a truth entrusted only to
the specific prophet. He is the only one privileged to know this truth
communicated to him by Hashem. The vision is a burden that does
not let him rest. He has a need to spurt forth spontaneously and a
desire to share it with others. For example, when someone is
entrusted with a secret they have a difficult time maintaining the
confidence. They find themself constantly struggling to refrain from
blurting it out. The prophet seeks to unburden himself by telling the
message of God to others. When it comes to a prophecy or to
Torah that a Jew knows, the only relief from his load comes through
sharing it with others. The Rambam says that the prophet is
required to tell his prophecy to others even when he knows that his
intended audience is not interested in the message and may seek
to harm him as a result of it, even if it costs him his life. Jeremiah
was an example of a prophet who wanted to hold back his
prophecy when the scoffers opposed him but he could not hold it
back. When the Jew has a prophecy or Torah to transmit, he must
view it as a Masa, a heavy burden, that in order to endure must be

46
transmitted with great care and exactness as a Sefer to the next
generation and not as an Igeres.

The ability of the Jewish parent to sacrifice themself for their child
is so great that it approaches the point of self negation. How can
such a person refrain from transmitting to his child the beauty of
Shabbos, Yom Tov, Tanach or Torah Shebal Peh and the great Jewish
personalities? Like the prophet of old, he can't control himself, he
must blurt out the message. If he does not transmit it to his child,
the reason must be because he himself is lacking the feeling for
these things. In order to be a successful scribe, you yourself must
feel the burden of prophecy, the Masa Dvar Hashem.
In essence, this is the Mitzvah of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim,
V'Higadta L'Bincha, and you shall instruct your children. A Jew must
present his child with a Sefer and not an Igeres. Inscribing such a
Sefer for the next generation is the way for every Jew to attain the
level of prophecy in his lifetime. If you would ask what is the
greatest characteristic of Knesses Yisrael, it is the great wonder of
Jewish History, the ability to engage in Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim not
just on Pesach night. It is the ability for one generation to turn the
subsequent generation into its carefully written Sefer.

The Rav noted that the night of Pesach is a symbol for this inter-
generational transmission process. We are all familiar with the story
of the great rabbis that were assembled in Bnay Brak and were
involved in Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim all that night till dawn. The Rav
asked which night was it? The Rav interpreted the night as
extending beyond that immediate night of Pesach. The "Night"
refers to the long and dark exile period that we have endured for 2
thousand years. It is the long night of pogroms and blood libels and
crusades and inquisitions and holocaust that we have endured. Not
only were Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi
Yehoshua at that table, but Gedolei Rishonim and Achronim who
lived through the rain of Jewish blood and misery throughout the
ages were there as well. Yet despite all these difficulties, Gedolei
Yisrael recognized that they had a mission to be the scribes of the
their generation, not in terms of writing books but as scribes that
engrave a love of Torah in the heart of each Jew. Gedolei Yisrael
carried the burden, the Masa Hashem, and transmitted their Torah
as an inter-generational Sefer and not as a fleeting Igeres. They
seized on the method Hashem uses, the Sippur Bsefer, writing on
the book of creation, to ensure the continuity of faith in Hashem
and the eternity of the Jewish people. The Torah remains alive to us
today because of them. If not for their efforts, we would not be able
to sit at our Seder table and discuss the xodus on the night of
Pesach. Jews are called the Am Hasefer, the people of the book,

47
not because they are avid readers, but because each and every
Jew is a living book that has been authored by the previous
generations.

How long must we function as Sofrim, as scribes? When does the

Jew complete his assignment of studying Torah? How long must we
emulate the ways that Hashem created the world, through Sfor,
Sippur and Sefer? Until we see that the next generation is ready to
shoulder the load and assume its role in this never ending chain.
Until the students knock on their teachers' door and say "Our
Teachers, the time to recite the morning Shema has arrived", that
they are now ready to assume the leadership role. The essence of
Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim is to create the living books, the Seforim,
that will ensure the continuity of Torah and Judaism, is not limited
to the night of Pesach. It is an eternal mission.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1999, Josh Rapps and Israel Rivkin, Edison, NJ. Permission
to reprint this Shiur, with this notice, is granted.

Lecture deleivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday

night, April 7, 1979

“Shabbos Hagodol”
Tonight, I shall concentrate on a few lines of the section of the
Hagaddah “Arami Ovad Avi”. However, I want to remind you of the
construction of the Hagaddah. Constructionwise it is a very difficult
book considering the sequences and events. It can be divided into
either 3 or more parts (that is the section which precedes the
meal). It is not merely the first half but rather more than the first
half. It is the narrative or story-telling which constitutes the first
half. It is sort of a “masoreh” or tradition told to younger peope
than ourselves.
We can say that hagaddah consists of 3 or 5 parts. The first
part where emphasis is placed are the laws or “hilchos” pretaining
to “yetzias Mitzraim” beginning with “Avodim Hoyinu”. We say,
“there is a Mitzvah ‘sippur yetzias Miztraim’ -- declaring the Exodus;
we identify the halacha. We state the basic law. We say that in
essence even if we know the story, the reason it is a “mitzvah” for
us to recite Yetzias Mitzraim, is because it is the study of Torah --
like “talmud Torah,” we never know it all. We never know all; there
is always something to learn. The more a person will study, the
more he will learn and know. Therefore, the first part is not
contingent upon erudition or knowledge but is a positive
commandment.

48
 Next, we are told of the five “Rabonim” of which none was
greater. Yet, they learned something new, apparently. Next follows
“Omar Rav Elozor” (Rabbi Elazar, son of Azariah said). This
identifies the “time” for “Sippur Yetzias Mitzraim” (declaring the
Exodus). Next come antohre halacha, “Boruch Hamokom” (Blessed
in G-d who gave the Law to His people Israel). Why is the Bal
Hagaddah overcome in an ecstatic mood? Why does he get so
excited, praising G-d and telling of the four sons, including the
skeptic and the agnostic? Why this ecstatic enthusiasm? The
answer for the rejoicing: Each one has a share! The great scholar
cannot say tot he ignorant man, “My share is greater.” The man
who was not blessed by the Alm-ghty with a great mind but who
puts in a sincere effort is recognized as an equal to the great.
There is a separate text for the great mind, the simpleton and even
the one who refuses -- the skeptic. A Jew has greatness and we
don’t know when it will emerge. It is derived from the prophet
Ezekiel “Boruch Shaym K’vod Malchuso” (Blessed is the Name, the
glory of His kingdom is forever). We are all in the embrace of the
Alm-ghty. “Boruch Hamokom” -- Everyone, everything is in space.
As one cannot escape space, so can he not escape “Hakodosh
Boruch Hu”. When He gave the Torah, He did not give it just to the
great mind. For istance, although some minds cannot understand
science and therefore have no share in science, in Torah everyone
has a share. It is perhaps more important to tell the simple child
than the great mind. G-d embraces the whole world as a mother
embraces all her children, no matter how many. He embraces all
mankind, especially the Covenental Community.
Next comes “Mitchila” (orginally our ancestors). What kind of
a statement is this and what does it tell? There is not a superfluous
word in the Hagaddah. Therefore, why was this recitiation from the
prophet Joshuah introduced? It tells of our humble origin -- our low
origin. According to mythology, people came into the world due to
a love affair between a god and a human (Greek, Roman, Nordic).
Not so us. We tell of our low origin. “We would have remained
there in Egypt.” “My parent was a simple idolator.” The fact that
we introduced such great standards is not due to us but the
initiative belongs to G-d. Our greatness is due to a special act of
grace from G-d. It could have been any nation. We were chosen
because of an act of grace -- a special favor. We are not deserving.
Gratitude is the very basis of our faith. He invited us to come
nearer. It is an act of “Chessed” - loving kindness. “You didn’t
display any specific traits of character to make you worthy. I
selected you due to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”
Next. The thought is very cryptic - short about Mount Seir for
Esau - and Jacob to Egypt. They were two brothers; their destinies
should have been identical. How did Esau get “Har Seir”. In sedra

49
Vayishlach - chapter 36, line 6, we are told: “Esau took his wives,
sons and daughter, livestock - all he had acquired and went to a
different land.” He didnt’ eat manna in the desert for 40 years. He
merely took over the land because G-d promised it to him. He took
it over quickly rather than waiting a long, long waiting period. The
same promise was made to us! Did Jacob get it? For a while he did
-- not quickly -- and even not now. Eventually, yes! So what idea is
expressed in this short terse statement? It is the uniqueness of this
statement. No other nation has received such a promise which
took so long to implrement. The gentile writer Ibsen said, “What is
a Jew? He who waits!” No other nation knows how to wait as the
Jew. This is the characteristic trait of the Jew. Therefore, there are
two ideas in this paragrah -- grace and waiting.
Next is the leap! Let us start telling the history of our destiny.
Now begins the history -- “Arami Ovad Avi” (either my father was a
wandering nomad or the Syrian almost killed my father). Relating
Yetzias Mitzraim is not a narrative. It is a study in depth every
Pesach; it is Talmud. We find this statement in sedra “Ki Sovo” of
Deuteronomy. It is a statement or recitation made in the Bais
Hamikdosh and was adopted by the Hagadddah. This they said
every time they come with their gifts. Here in Hagaddah it is not
merely a statement but is analyzed in depth. We employ
comparative analysis between the two places. Up to this point, we
merely stated halachos and the traits of our people - humble origin,
etc. Now by stating these principles we start to tell the story.
“Sippur” is not to tell but to study. It means “semantics in depth”.
In Bais Hamikdosh, it was merely a statement.
Where does the analysis end in the Hagaddah? It ends at
“Rabbi Yehuda Hoyoh Hosayn Bohem Simonim” (Rabbi Yehuda
assigned to them initials Detsach, Adash, Beachab”. Rabban
Gamliel that the 3 symbols Pesach, Matzo, Moror - be identified.
Then the final “Boruch Atoh --- Asher Goalonu” (Blessed is G-d who
brought us forth to this night).
Therefore, how many parts? 1) Halocho (laws). 2) Mitchila
(short recitation - Jew was elected - Kabolas Ohl Hashomayim - (We
accepted our role!). (It is strange that the struggle which began
3500 years ago still has not been resolved because Esau went to
Seir (Rome) and Yaakov waits his destiny). We are eternally
indebted to Him no matter how long it will last. This is Kabolas Ohl
Hashomayim. 3) Sippur - Arami - not merely “told” but studied and
understood. 4) Then we come to Hallel -- only the first 2 chapters
before the meal. Why the division? Because Mitzraim is not
mentioned in the second half of Hallel and it belongs to “Pesach
L’osid” - the Passover of the future. Therefore, we ahve four (4)
parts.

50
 Tonight, I would like to pick out four comparisons. A)
Vayorayu Osonu HaMiztrim. (And the Egyptians ill-treated us).
Again, this is taken from sedra Ki Sovo - the statement made by
each person who came to the Bais Hamikdosh and then introduced
into the Hagaddah. In the Torah, we find the same passage twice
described but in slightly different language semantically. There is
the famous epistle in which Moshe sent messengers to the children
of Esau in order for the Israelites to pass through their land. In
sedra “Chukas” of Bamidbar, chapter 20, line 16 “Vayorayu Lonu
Mitzraim” (the Egyptians ill-treated us). In sedra “Ki Sovo” of
Devarim - chapter 26, line 6 - “Voyorayu Osonu HaMitzrim”. Again,
it has exactly the same translation - Lonu - Osonu both mean “to
us”. Yet, there is a choice of different words. Moshe employs Lonu
- the Israelites say Osonu. What did Pharoah say? “Let us act with
cunning because the Jew is cunning. Let us outwit him.” He
considered the Jew disloyal, one who will eat the fat of the land but
will not defend the land. Pharoah created a reputation for the Jew
as a deceitful being. It has accompanied us through the ages but
was begun by Pharoah. He has made us to be “bad fellows”. He
has maligned us, he has blackened our personality. “The Jew
cannot be trusted.”
There are many verbs in Hebrew which might occur with
several cases. For example, we have “Asher Bochar Bonu” (in the
blessing, “He who chose us.”) This is the ablative case. It also
comes in the accusative or objective case “Asher Bochar Osonu.”
Both mean the same superficially but what is the difference.
Semantically, between the ablative and accusitive case, when
“Bochar” is in the ablative case, it means no consolation possible.
It cannot be revoked or altered (Therefore, in Bochar Bonu - it
means for example that G-d chose us and it is irrevocable.)
Rambam says that the Kedushah of the Bais Hamikdosh cannot be
altered. It is absolute, irrevocable. If it is accustaive it is weaker. It
can be altered and undone. Irrevocably, we have the following: a)
Torah; b) Nevuah (the prophecies); c) Eretz Yisroel; d) Yerushalaim.
Therefore, ablative is strong and cannot be cancelled.
There is another way of expressing the article in Hebrew
grammar. It can be expressed B’(Baze) or L’ (Lamed) or we can use
the article Es before the noun. “Es” is stronger. It is the ablative.
B’ or L’ is weaker - accusative. How do we know this? This is a
classic example in Torah referring love of man towards man and
love of man towards G-d. Concerning love towards man it is
written, “V’Ohavto L’Rayacho Komocho” (and you shall love your
neighbor as yourself). Concerning G-d, it is written “V’Ohavto Es
Hashem Elokecho”. Towards man it is objective, weaker. Towards
G-d, accusative, irrevocable. It is impossible to be absolutely
dedicated to even a brother. It is not humanly possible. There is

51
the controversy of two people in the desert with a small pitcher of
water. If they share, both will die because it cannot sustain two. If
one drinks, he will live, the other die. The sage Ben Peturah
advocates sharing. Rabbi Akivah says that the one who has the
pitcher drinks and lives. Why does he say this? Is Akivah
heartless? It is because he illustrates that one cannot love another
person’s life as his own.
For G-d is is “Es” even at the cost of your life. This is the
difference between L’ (Lamed) and Es. Therefore L’Ryacho for man
-- Es for G-d. Do help your brother but not the same degree as
yourself. Therefore, it does not say Es Rayacho. If it is a human
problem, I come first. To G-d it is unmitigated love.
Now concerning Pharaoh’s treatment of the Jews - If it said
Yorayu Lonu it would not be as strong. It would mean he made life
a little unpleasant, irritated us, but did not want to destroy us.
Osonu means to enslave the entire people, to destroy because he
hated them. The same was Hitler’s decision of the “final solution”
at Vansee. The Germans thought he meant “Lonu”. The “heads
rolling in the dust” meant Osonu. This is the “Hava Nischakmo Lo”
- let us be cunning. It was the same language of Goebbels. “They
acted as naive children. We won the battle. It was the “final
solution”. Why say Pharaoh? Because they are a security risk.
They will make us leave the land. The Osonu, therefore, is
complete destruction. This is how “Bal Hagaddah” interprets this.
Vayanunu. They tortured us. They caused us pain! What
does it mean? It is physical forced hard labor without
compensation, where each individual must deliver a certain quota.
It is either the daily quota or the whip. It is either a brick made or a
child entombed in its place. If I don’t profit by meeting the quota it
is psychologically very hard. Vayar Es Onyanu - He saw our
affliction - the enforced separation of man and wife. What
prompted the Bal Hagaddah from interpreting differently between
the verb of “Vayanunu” and the noun “Onyanu”. It says He heard
our voice. Then why does it say, “And He saw our affliction?” - our
burden - our oppression. Apparently, these things were not
included in their prayer. In addition to their prayer, G-d recognized
things which they themselves didn’t know and didn’t include. What
did they complain? The work! There are many forms of slavery.
The most obvious is chicanery - making people work without pay.
They only felt the physical aspect but not the spiritual. The other
phenomena they didn’t realize. Their cry rose to G-d but was
limited. Otherwise, if according to their prayers, He would have
saved them physically but would not have changed them to
spiritual greatness. It is said that if He merely listened to our
prayers, it would have resulted in half a redemption, indeed, bad
for us. Therefore, “Vayar”. He took a good look. He understood

52
that which they couldn’t understand. Therefore, the “Vayar,” in
addition to “Vayishma”. They were aware of the torture bu of the
different level in store for them, they were unaware!
Kol Habayn (all the sons you shall throw into the water). At
the time of “Yetzias Mitzraim, this was already long, long forgotten.
It was a statute which was once on the books perhaps 2 or 3
generations before. It existed once for 3 months when Moshe was
born, eighty years ago. It had been abolished by the “Melech
Chodosh”, the new king. The people themselves had forgotten that
their children had been killed. The statute of limitations had
expired. They forgot to mention it in their prayers. The same
applies today. From 1944 to 1979, people have forgotten Treblinka,
Maidenek, etc. Everyone forgot. They mentioned only labor in
their prayers. But, G-d didn’t forget. The mind of the tortured
becomes physically exhausted. It is hard to imagine but survivors
of the death camps whose children were killed say, “If he or she
had not been killed, they’d be around 50 now. Many people die at
age of 50 anyway. The martyr’s deaths were not mentioned in the
prayers.
“Lachatz” - oppression. The element of “lachatz” is what
tipped the balance in favor of Israel. What is decisive about
“Lachatz” which is not in “onyanu” and “Vayanunu” etc? It means,
“Action is imperative now.” They had to spend there 400 years and
were there but half the time. G-d accelerated it as much as
possible. “It is now or never.” There are pain thresholds of which
some have high thresholds and some have low ones. The same
applies to persecution thresholds. Some people may easily be
shattered by persecution.
G-d had to act quickly because of the tremendous
pressure for assimilation. They were severely threatened.
Chazal says that “Yetzias Mitzraim” was as taking a baby from
the mother’s womb. It was now or goodbye. Otherwise, let us
forget the promise to Abraham, the eschatological future, the
messianic future. “But I cannot do it, I have already promised
Abraham.” Worthy or not, it must be. “The Jew can fall very low
but can rise very high.” It was declared by a philosopher we
don’t at all care for -- Zeresh, wife of Haman. “When Israel falls,
it is as low as the ground, but when she rises it is up to the
stars.” Thus, the problem must quickly be resolved. Torah says,
“Despite all of Israel’ faults, it is still my child.” She can rise as
high as the sky.

53
 Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik
on Saturday night, January 12, 1989

“Parsha Shmos”
We raised the question about the second book of the Torah
last week but not about the name of the book. Most authorities
called it “Sifra D’Hafkona” - Exodus. Others called it by a strange
name, merely “sefer sheni” - the “second book”. This is no so
with the other books such as three, four or five (they have
specific names as will be shown). Still however this is not
universal for as example Ulla did not accept. Also, Rambam
(Nachmanides) calls it “Sefer Hageulah” the book of redemption.
Apparently, there is something important to “Sheni”. We will
accept it as “shmos” which literally means ‘names’. The names
of Chumoshim can be selected merely by accepting the first word
(of importance - we naturally wouldn’t use the word V’ayla).
The only question is while regards to other Chumoshim we
have other names. Vayikra is Sefer Kohanim - the book of the
priests. However, Shmos doesn’t work that way. For instance,
Bamidbar is not merely the first word of the fourth book but it is
very typical of the entire 38 years in the desert. Almost as a matter
of a sentence, we have a passing of 38 years in sedra Chukas, we
have the laws of the “Parah Adumuh” given in the first or second
year and then is mentioned the death of Miriam which occured in
the 40th year. So we see that it all took place Bamidbar or in the
desert. It is not only semantically, but the most logical name due to
the entire stretch of years. Devorim is a repetition of all the
“things” previously given in Torah. Why Vayikra? Because there
was an appointment between G-d and Moshe in the Ohel Moed.
What I am showing is taht the names of the Chumoshim are not
technical but for good solid reasons. They are not technical but he
experiences recorded. What about Shmos? Shmos is characteristic
for the second book! I would never imagine that Shmos contains
something other than technical.
Rashi, however, betrays the secret. Rashi was motivated to
explain that the children of Israel are named during their lifetime in
sedra Vayigash and here again -- to announce how G-d was fond of
them. What basically does a name indicate? It means individuality!
It is singleness, uniqueness. Basically, a name is indicative of being
individual, different -- one person from another. It is ego awareness.
It differs from individual to individual. I recall that years ago when I
was in Eretz, I was taken to a kibbutz, a socialistic one. My guide
showed me a cow which he called, “Rachel”. I intuitively stepped
aside. “Is that against you rabbis too?” he asked. It is wrong
because individuality belongs to a human who cannot be replaced.
If someone died and was an ignorant person, without character --

54
not worthy of respect, it is still a loss. Every individual has been
endowed with “Zelem Elokim,” no matter who he is. That is why
Torah introduced “avaluth” - mourning. There is a loss which cannot
be replaced. Therefore, even to the point of M’chalal Shabbos every
individual must be preserved. Reuven is not like Shimon. That is
why man feels lonely and it is most typified in time of sickness.
That is why Torah introduced Bikur Cholim, Hachnosas Orchim,
Avalus -- with such great importance. A dog has great friendship for
his master but the second one will have the same friendship.
Therefore, a dog has no name; it is only a species. Therefore, no
“Avalus” for a dog, no matter how devoted. That is why Yehadus
was so conscious in recording K’suvos in Hebrew according to the
exact name. The name means something. How was Abraham
elevated to spiritual greatness? By changing his name. Rambam
says that where Jacbo is designated as Ya’akov it is typical of one
destiny. Where it is Yisroel, it is another destiny.

Hakodosh Boruch Hu has concluded the covenant not with a

nation but with an individual. Finally, it developed into a community
of seventy people. But the individual covenant was with Abraham.
The Ten Commandments was addressed not in the plural but to the
individual - to emphasize that G-d is ready to do business with even
the individual. Even if the whole community faltered, He is willing
to deal with but one person. That is why in Shmos, the names are
repeated and emphasized. Thus, it says these are the names, Ish
U’vayso - each man and his family. Each man is dear to Hakodosh
Boruch Hu and each man is dear to G-d as the entire community
and maybe even more. That is why halacha is so concerned with
the individual. There is dignity of the Yochid - the individual. The
first posek is the motto of the Chumash. G-d took the people out
not because they were an “Am” - nation, but because they suffered
individually.
Torah tell us that Rabbi Akivah came to Ginzu, perhaps to
gather money to support Kochba’s revolution. He told them the
story of the “mabul” - the great flood - but no one was emotionally
affected. The next day he told them another and all burst out
crying. After all, the Flood involved all humanity. The story he told
was of a personal tragedy where a house collapsed on a person.
What does it show? The tragedy of the Yochid has a greater impact
often than the multitudes. Some people may not be as emotionally
motivated by the loss of 6 million Jews in Germany as by the
individual store of inhuman suffering. Therefore, Torah tells us that
in “V’aylah Shmos” - Yetzias Mitzraim - the Exodus would have taken
place even if one individual had been there. It did not have to be a
multitude. “Ish U’Vayso” - one man and his family. Because of the
few families, a relationship was established with G-d.

55
 The Aseres Hadivros - the commandments - was also written
in the plural. Where? In sedra Kedoshim. (Actually it is recorded in
three places - Yisro, Kedoshim, V’etchanan.) Once numbers are
introduced we are then interested in the collective entity. It is now
an established entity. But in Shmos, we still have the individual. We
cannot say that Yehadus is interested in only an individual or only a
community. Both is correct! One individual would have been
worthy of liberation but G-d wanted them to become a great nation.

Point II “Hamitzi B’mispor Zvoam” - He that bringeth out the host

by number. This is a sentence from Rashi and can best be
exemplified as the position of all the stars and constellations in the
entire cosmos. Collectively, each one is but part of one universe
comprising the entire cosmos. And yet each one is numbered,
named and accounted for individually by G-d. Each has its
individual function presumably wihtout which the universe cannot
function.

Similarly, in Knesses Yisroel, it is a system which is composed of

individuals comprising a unique system. Yet each one has its
individual worth. Therefore, here in Shmos, G-d was ready to
destroy the world (the greatest center of the world, Mitzraim) in
order to liberate them. Later, however, in Bamidbar, when it came
to taking the census, we have them counted by families, by clans.
In taking a census, we don’t count by individuals because it would
destroy the individulity of the Jew. Therefore, in the desert, they
counted the Shekalim contributed by each. In later times, a census
was counted by fingers.

Point III Vayokom Melech Chodosh - A new king arose who didn’t
know Joseph! In a sense, he didn’t know what Joseph did for Egypt.
Targum Onkelos says, “Lo M’kayam G’zarus Yosef,” - he didn’t
uphold the edict of Joseph. What G’zara did Joseph implement? It
means he was stupid and an ingrate. He didn’t recognize what
Joseph had done; for with Joseph, Egypt would have been
destroyed. Apparently, when Jacob came to Egypt there was a
question of supporting the family. It was not just feeding but
apparently there was an agreement or a promise that Pharaoh, the
government would supply food to Jacob’s family, irregardless of
circumstances. This is “G’zarus Yosef” - Joseph’s decree or edict. In
sedra Vaychee, we find “Al Tirov” - do not fear; Pharaoh will
implement that which he promised. “And Joseph settled his family
as Pharaoh instructed. Pharaoh instructed that the family be fed no
matter how long the family remain.
Now we have “melech chodosh” - a new king - who doesn’t want to
honor the agreement. “Asher Lo Yodah” -- who doesn’t recognize,

56
who doesn’t appreciate. There are two points of interest! In sedra
Vayigash we find: “Bring your father and your household. Take --
birng father -- do not long for your goods; the best of Egypt is
before you!” We get the impression that Pharaoh wanted the whole
family to come! Why? He appreciated Joseph, recognized him as a
genius who foresaw the future and told Pharaoh how to prepare. He
had unlimited confidence! “If one is a genius, they may all be!” “If
you have to spend money don’t worry. The best of Egypt is before
you!” It was a strong statement.
Apparently, his successor changed. In sedra Vaychee, we find that a
whole multitude of Egyptians went to bury Jacob. It was a great
mourning. What is amazing is that the Egyptians mourned Jacob.
The place of mourning is called “Ayval Mitzraim” -- Egyptian
mourning. Egypt actually was in despair. Zohar asks a question
“Why?” The answer is that they already beheld the decline of Egypt
as a world power. It commenced to become a secondary power.
Chazal says that as long as Jacob was in Egypt the Nile River used
to rise to water the land. With his death, it stopped rising. They
intuitively felt that Egypt will face money crises which will
eventually reduce it as a nation. We almost feel the same here in
Russian feelings towards America. We feel that we are declining.
“With the passing of that old Jew something radical will happen.” Of
course, if they hadn’t started with the Jews, it wouldn’t have
brought plagues. With Joseph’s death, there was no one to qualify
to guide the destinies of the Egyptian nation. Therefore, the
statement in Torah, “Hovo Nischarmo Lo” - (Let us act with guile
against them) means automatically the decline of Egypt. The same
applied to Germany!

Point IV What was actually the plan of G-d regarding Yetzias

Mitzraim? G-d told Moshe: “Go to Pharaoh and tell him to let the
people go out for three days. They will offer their Korbonos and will
come back as usual.” Pharaoh refused! “Nirpin Atem” -- You are
lazy! If you introspect, you find nothing about liberation of slaves.
It merely states a three day festival. Pharaoh refused and so began
a drama. But what was the nature? What if Pharaoh had complied?
What impression do you get when you read it? What if he had said
yes! G-d could have taken them out in 5 seconds if He so desired.
Why the engagement of debates, the months of threats?
Apparently, they wanted to convince Pharaoh, to get the people out
without coercion. He waited a long time so that he, Pharaoh should
realize that he is wrong and the people are right. In fact, Pharaoh
did realize but a little too late. We find in sedra Bo, “You too will
send your cattle along!” What does Moshe mean by this? It means,
you will ask us to sacrifice for you and your nation! You’ll join us.
You, Pharaoh, will become a “gayr” a convert and a “gayr” has to

57
offer a sacrifice. The “Yetzias” was not merely to take out the
slaves and not the master. This is why it says “You will give
sacrifices (cattle) too!” Had he done so, Pharaoh would have
undergone the process of T’shuvah. In the time of Bais Hamikdosh,
the process of “Gayrus” consisted of “milah” (circumcision),
“T’vilah” (immersion), and “Korban” (a sacrifice). (Now it only
consists of the first two.) Therefore, Moshe says to Pharaoh, “You
will entrust to us ‘Zvochim’ - sacrifices. In other words, what was
the objective of ‘Yetzias Mitzraim’? It was not merely to take the
Jews out but to convert the Egyptians. Had this occured, “Melech
Hamoschiach” would have come along. Since it didn’t, the salvation
is slow in coming. Therefore, since he refused, he was in essence
stupid. Pharaoh is insensitive; he does not understand. At other
times, he did see the light. “Perhaps I should convert not only
myself but the whole empire.”
Therefore, in scripture it is written at times “M’chabad es libo.” And
at times “m’chazak”. When it says “chabad” it means “he is hard
headed (stubborn).” When it is “chazak” it is encouraged -
strengthened. There are two types of sins. One individual is
“chabad” like a stone -- insensitive. The other sinner is “chazak”.
He sees the truth but he has no courage. This is why Pharaoh’s
heart is described in two different terms. At times, his heart was
hard as a stone; at times, he tried to understand. The mere fact
that he didn’t lock up “those two old men,” Moshe and Aaron, shows
that he had sensitivity. Despite his initial outcry, “Who is G-d? I
don’t know him!”, he had an inward feeling that these two men are
right. But he didn’t have the courage. The same applies to people I
ahve known who have been intelligent, who have come to my
shiurim but still were “mchalal mitzvos” - desecrated. When I asked
them why, they answered that they lacked the courage to face their
families and declare their change.
However, Pharaoh made one mistake. It was when his scouts
returned after seven days to say that Israel had not returned, that
which he thought would be 3 days. The truth is that had Pharaoh
let them go without coercion, it would have been 3 days. But here
there was no agreement and hence it was enlarged. The same
thing was regarding the 1948 war and the territory. The Arabs
never agreed so the territory was enlarged in 1967. Otherwise, if
they had agreed to the U.N. mandate, they would be justified.
Point V Poru (terms regarding the Jews) - Fertility. It was a blessing
that woman should be fertile. “Vayishr’tzu” No fetus should die.
“Vayirbu” means to grow up, to mature. The complaint was “they
are not ready for release; not mature.” Therefore, Vayirbu. So it
was conception, incubation, childhood growth without succumbing
to disease. Then “Vayatzmu” - They were courageous. Egypt says,
“They are more than us!” Ridiculous. Of course, Egypt had

58
numerical superiority. It means: “They are superior to us
intellectually!”

Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night,

January 19, 1989 Sedra Vayroh

We will start with the first two or three P’sukim of today’s sedra and
Rashi’s interpretation. “And G-d spoke unto Moses and said to him: I
am the L-rd. And I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as G-d
Alm-ghty, ‘Kal Shadai’ but by My name Yud Kay Vov Kay (Havaya) I
made Me not known to them.”
It is difficult to understand the continuity. Rashi poses the problem:
“The Avoth (patriarchs) knew “Havaya” as well as Moshe. When you
study Bereshis you are left with the impression that they knew
“Havaya” as well as Kal Shaddai. “They knew of Me as ‘Havaya’ but
it was not an intimate knowledge. They knew Me better as ‘Kal
Shaddai’. We were not on the friendly basis of ‘Havaya’. I did not
befriend them as ‘Havaya’.” Abraham was not only a servant of G-d
but a friend. Man must be obedient but also is a friend of G-d. “G-d
was my shepherd since my youth” means He was my friend, my
playmate from youth. Rambam declares, “let us walk together
holding arms.” This experience of friendship was related to Kal
Shaddai -- not Havaya. G-d’s name as Kal Shaddai comes always
when G-d makes a promise. Rashi says that it is exclusively
connected with promise. (It must be kept in mind that whenever
the name Kal Shaddai is used in Torah, it indicates a promise but not
necessarily fulfillment. The word Hashem or Havaya means: “I am
faithful to fulfill my promise whether for reward or punishment.) “To
them, the Patriarchs, I promised but did not fulfill. You, Moshe, are
fortunate to be selected to become acquainted on both levels.
Abraham was my friend with whom I walked but not as ‘Havaya’.
He had limited knowledge. “To you I reveal the very essence. I
established my covenant -- I have heard the cry, etc. I have
reminded myself!” The Alm-ghty declares “Gam Hakimosi Brisi” - I
am about to fulfill my covenant. It is difficult to understand! What
find of a promise did G-d make to the patriarchs which He didn’t
fulfill? When Moshe failed at his first encounter with Pharaoh, he
came back with the complaint to G-d: “The situation is more
difficult; You haven’t saved!” These were strong words for man to
use to G-d. He answered, “The old men had more faith than you.
Then the three examples are cited. A) When Abraham needed a
burial plot for Sarah, he paid a high price (400 pieces of silver) and
yet never complained, although the entire land had been promised
to him. B) When Isaac’s servants dug wells and they were
repeatedly filled with sand by the inhabitants, he never lost faith
and complained. C) When Jacob wanted to build a home upon his

59
return from Laban, he paid 100 “ksita” (monetary denomination)
and didn’t complain. All this was despite the promise “All the land
will I give you.” They never complained. “You, Moshe, complained
at once.” “What is your name that I shall tell them? They won’t
believe me!” Apparently, Rashi interprets, “They experienced me
on the level of Kal Shaddai - promise only. Friendship as “Havaya”
was granted to Moses and this in turn to the Covenental
Community. But the “Avoth” - the patriarchs - did not have this
share. Theirs was absolute faith. There is not a single mention that
G-d had to convince Abraham. Abraham never asked, “Why not
give me the land?” But this is minor. How about the “Akedah”?
Why didn’t he ask a single question when G-d requested that
Abraham bring his son up for a sacrifice? The question he asked
was only after G-d had already directed, “Don’t touch the lad!”
Abraham is the knight, the greatest man of faith to the last iota.
Therefore, G-d tested him many times. There was the “moving
away from the land of his ancestors,” the circumcision, etc. But why
is Akedah so frightening? What is frightening is that the whole
world would have said, “Abraham is a liar! He has done the
opposite of what he constantly preached against (human sacrifice)
and Abraham preached to countless thousands. “This man of the
Middle East who preached against hurting people, took his child for
whom he waited 100 years. Fully realizing this, what did Abraham
say? Nothing! This is the great act of “Emunah” - faith. Basically,
Abraham was tested quite often. Sometimes the tests contradicted
all that which he tried to teach the people. Yet Abraham never said
a word. Take another example! When Lot was snatched away by
the kings, Abraham became involved in a war where he didn’t
belong. It is as the final was which wil take place on the hills of
Judea (the war of Gog and Magog in the messianic era as
prophesized by the Prophet). Who will have invited them?
Therefore, Abraham’s friendship with G-d was not based on success
or riches but rooted in faith. Yet sometimes, G-d reveals Himself in
two ways. There is “Chessed V’Rachamim” - kindness and mercy, in
which whatever man does results in success. Then the answers
come immediately. Sometimes the answer is not so simple.
Eventually all prayers of man will be fulfilled. It means G-d
befriends man through “midas Harachamim” - the attribute of
mercy. Sometimes, it is both, to some people and to some antions.
He bestows unlimited riches, etc., as we believe will be B’mos
Hamoshicach - in the messianic era. (I believe this is as G-d has
bestowed on the United States.) If man feels “G-d befriended” him,
it means “B’shmi Hashem” through the “Havaya”.
“My friendship to the Avoth was not based on bestowing My grace,
in fact, not at all; it came very slowly!” Abraham had to wait a long
time (G-d did nto reveal Himself to him until he was 75 years old).

60
Yitzchak, Yaakov -- all had to wait. This is what Abraham
represented - “Bitochin” - faith. But as for Moshe, there was no
waiting. At the most it was a year. This is not considered waiting in
terms of human history. What is “shaddai”? Man is in a state of
waiting while G-d is not ready to fulfill. “Shaddai” is “limited”. G-d
who created the universe says “Stop! It is finite.” What can man
learn from this? It is the capability or the ability of self-contraction,
self-restriction. He taught Abraham the ability to say, “I must not
cross the boundary! I must stop.” What is observing Torah and
Mitzvos? It is rooted in one idea: Man must learn to say, “Enough”.
He must control temptation! If he doesn’t, he doesn’t observe the
Law. It is man’s capability to say to his own intellect, “Enough”.
Not everything can be resolved! It is my ability to contradict my
own intellect. When Abraham took the “Akedah” he contradicted his
own intellect. The intellect tries to convince man that what he does
is absurd. In most cases, man should be guided by intellect. But in
some instances, it must be faith. Th intellect sometimes has no say.
The greater the paradox, the stronger is the faith.

Even concerning the land which G-d promised to one individual,

Abraham, how is it intellectually possible for one man to get the
land of seven nations (Canaan, Hittite, Amorites, etc.)? One should
reason the possibility thusly: “You will train your son in warfare and
strength and he in turn will train his sons.” The educational system
will revolve around a plan of strength. The seven nations are
primitive while you will advance. In the course of years, you will be
ready to overtake, to conquer. How did the European courntries
overtake so many nations of the world (Orient, Africa, etc). The
Europeans were sophisticated and trained!

Now, had G-d such a promise, He should have said to Abraham,

“Don’t move! Train your army and you’ll be able to conquer. So the
first command should have been: “Stay here! You’ll develop a
military nation for the future!” But, this is not how the promise was
made at all. “How can I defeat them?” “You have to leave the land;
do not leave a single soul. If you do you won’t get the land. Leave,
go to Eretz Mitzraim, become slaves for 400 years. When you come
back, you’ll get it. The land will be yours. If Jacob had remained in
Canaan it never would have been implemented. Strange? Yet
Abraham didn’t ask a question! The greater the paradox, the
greater the faith. “V’Gam Hakimosi” -- And I’ll establish my
covenant. “I established my covenant and insisted that they leave
- desert it.” “Come back in 400 years and it’s yours!” Abraham
believed and accepted. Why did G-d emphasize “Brisi” - covenant?
Because it was a great paradox and Abraham accepted. It is not

61
coincidental with logic. This is B’kal Shaddai. They defied their own
personality.
For Moshe, it was already simple -- no paradox. So the question is,
“Who was actually greater, Abraham or Moshe?” In Shmono Esrei,
we only say, “Elokay Avrohom, Elokay Yitzchok, Elokay Yaakov,” not
Elokay Moshe. Yet, we have a posek in Torah in which Miriam was
critical of Moshe and G-d punished her. G-d admonished her:
“Moshe is a greater prophet than you. You are not the same!”
When did Moshe achieve this exalted position? It was the second
time that he went up the mountain for 40 days. The first time that
Moshe recieved the “luchos” the Tablets, Torah doesn’t describe
him. After he recieved the “luchos” the second time, Torah already
describes him: “He didn’t perceive that the skin of his face shone.”
At that moment, he was elevated to the title, “Rav Lan’viim” (the
chief of all prophets). Therefore, the answer is that until this
moment, Abraham was greater than Moshe and that included even
Moshe’s accomplishments in Egypt and the Exodus. At this
moment, Moshe rose above Abraham. His uniqueness lay in the
fact that the “Taryag Mitzvoth” the entire commandments were
entrusted only to Moshe. Only after the second “luchos” did he
become the teacher. Why did G-d direct Moshe to prepare the
second set of “luchos” and that He (G-d) will inscribe them? Why
not give it to him? Why make him prepare it? What is the
difference between the original ones of G-d and those prepared by
Moshe? What does it indicate? It indicates that the luchos are
owned both by G-d and by Moshe. It is called “Toras Hashem and
Toras Moshe”. Interestingly, we have two Brochos recited at the
reading of the Torah. In the first one, we say “Asher Nosun Lonu Es
Toroso” - He gave us His Torah. After the reading, the Torah
becomes ours. In other words, the second “Luchos” are
representative of the Torah Sh’Bal Peh -- the Oral Law. The written
Torah (Biksav) is characterized by the first Luchos which is prepared
by G-d and given to man. “Bal Peh” the Oral Law, is man’s effort. It
is the Mishna, the Talmud worked at by man. It belongs to man.
“You prepare; I’ll write.” It becomes a partnership. Now Moshe
becomes “Rav Han’viim”. The entire Torah, Oral and Written, is
entrusted to Moshe. But if Moshe is so great, why “Elokay
Avraham” and not “Elokay Moshe”? Reason: Abraham searched for
G-d for many, many years and G-d did not react by responding for a
long time until Abraham was 75. Abraham was the searcher!
Moshe didn’t search. G-d found Moshe. Therefore, it is very simple!
G-d came to the “Avos” after they searched a long time. Therefore,
they are worthy of the title “Elokay Abraham, Yitchok, Yaakov.”

Important question: Today we read “Vohayroh”. What are the

tenets regarding “geulah” - (salvation) and faith? First, we are all

62
duty bound to believe that the people will be redeemed. As far as
our relationship with G-d is concerned, it is rooted in Kal Shaddai -
the promise. The promises have not yet been fulfilled. How long
could the experience of ‘Havaya’ be related to the people? (This is
the fulfillment which did occur vis a vis the geulah from Mitzraim.)
We are still Shaddai - still suffering. No other nation on the face of
the world has so suffered throughout the centuries. It would not be
bragging but we have survived because we have expereience it as
Kal Shaddai. “What are you waiting for? It will not be
implemented!”, have been the taunts of the nations. The Jewish
people have shown great perseverence, overcome great
temptations -- a very difficult existence. But we are still here. The
“midah” or creed of Abraham is true of the Jewish people: “Af Al Pih
Shehishamaya” -- Even though the redeemer tarries, I will have
perfect faith (from the principles of Maimonides).
The second is the following “Geulah” - redemption or salvation.
“Hakodosh Boruch Hu” sends a human being. There was no need to
send Moshe! If He wanted to redeem, He could have accomplished
it in seconds. Why the lengthy debate of seven days. Of course, G-
d is the redeemer. But for the physical aspect, He sends a human.
Hillel says: “There will be no person anointed as moschiach! G-d
will bring it alone!” Gemorah answers: “Forgive Hillel. He doesn’t
deny it but says that G-d will perform. When the time will come, G-
d will appoint. In Egypt, G-d had to beg Moshe. Rambam says that
moschiach will be more brilliant than Shlomo but that Moshe as a
prophet will be greater. Interestingly, though Moshe had a share in
the “Geulas Mitzraim” he is not recognized -- not even mentioned
on Pesach night. G-d would not have performed the Geulah without
Moshe. Yet there is no mention. Not even a “Yarshakoach”. In “shir
Hashirim” it reads “Bikashti - V’lo Motzosi.” (I sought him but did
not find him.) Medrash says that it refers to the fact that Moshe
disappeared just at the moment of the redemption. Where was he?
He was searching for the coffin containing the remains of Joseph.
Serach Bas Osher a very aged woman showed Moshe where to find
it.
My opinion is differnt. “I am searching for Moshe’s name. It is not
mentioned.” There is no trace of Moshe on Pesach night. G-d didn’t
want Moshe to appear as the redeemer. But He was extremely
generous when He gave the Torah to Moshe. Therefore, in Shir
Hashirim, “I found him and I wouldn’t let him go.” This is at
“Shavouoth”, the time of giving the Torah. The “Goayl”, the
redeemer, is only G-d. But as far as Torah it belongs only to Moshe.
Melech Hamoshiach will also be the teacher as described by Isaiah.
The redeemer will be G-d (therefore, we can understand what Hillel
meant). This is what G-d told Moshe when he was reluctant to
accept the mission. “Who am I to approach Pharaoh? There are

63
better ones! I am not a proper leader!” He was convinced that he
had shortcomings. G-d answered, “Don’t worry. A “Sheliach”
(messenger) has the right to do whatever he wants when the
‘m’shalach’ (sender) is not there. But I, the m’shalach, will go with
you, the sheliach. So the sheliach should not worry about failure
because the m’shalach will be there too. Rambam says the sheliach
tzibur (chazon) stands in the center. One ark is at mizrach - the
east; the other or bimah, is in the center. Why is the sheliach in the
middle? Because if he stands outside, away from the congregants
near the mizrach, the sheliach is alone and can err. But if he is
surrounded by the people, they are the m’shelochim. They back
him up. If congregants appoint a sheliach and they depart, then it
is not a sheliach. They must stand and answer “Amen” - in his very
presence.
Each novi - prophet - is a sheliach - so in every instance, G-d
accompanies him. Thus, in Tefilah, the sheliach is the novi. “It is
true that I selected you! Aaron is more of a speaker. He was raised
in the ghetto.” Moshe was there but a short time. This was Moshe’s
objection. “I don’t belong there; I wasn’t in ghetto.” This was his
argument.
G-d answered, “You are right! If I needed a great speaker,
organizer, leader, I’d choose Aaron or other persons. But this is not
what I need. I need a “M’lamed” -- a teacher, who will take the
slaves and in seven weeks will convert them to “mamleches
Kohanim” a priestly nation. For this, you are best. The rest leave to
me. This is also to be for Melech Hamoshiach. He will be able to
teach. “This is what you, Moshe, can accomplish -- no one else!”

Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night,

February 3, 1980
Parsha B’shalach / Shabbos Shirah
We call this Shabbos, “Shabbos Shirah” and it is the one in which
Parsha B’shalach is read. It is the one in which we recite the Shira
or song of Moshe Rabbenu at the miracle of the crossing of the Red
Sea.
Who actually said Shira concerning the miracle of the Exodus,
Yetzias Mitzraim? If you carefully read today’s Shira from A to Z,
you find no mention of Yetzias Mitzraim. All you find is the miracle
of Yam-Suf -- the Red Sea. It is very strange! If you look into the
“P’sukei D’zimra” (those prayers each morning of praise of G-d from
Ashrei on) you will notice something strange. It was arranged by
Chazal -- the sages and runs to the paragraph which ends “Kol
Hanshama T’hallel Koh Halelukah”. A Jew cannot daven, cannot say
Brochos without talking of the great event, Yetzias Mitzraim - the
birth of the nation. Whenever you praise G-d, the Exodus always
comes up. Then in the following paragraph Vayvorech Dovid - the

64
praises of David, there begins a balance between Yetzias Mitzraim
and Kryas Yam Suf - the crossing of the sea. From this, we go on to
the “shira” only. Therefore, in the prayers of “P’sukei D’Zimra” we
have a combining of both. We mention Mitzraim and then go on to
the Shira. (All this concerns us - the people who lived ages after the
actual event - but not the people who took part in the Exodus. They
only sang at the sea.)
Actually, who was the first one to sing praises concerning the
liberation from Egypt? It was Yisro, Moses’ father-in-law in next
week’s sedra. When he came and heard of the deliverance, he
exclaimed (Yisro, chapter 18, line 10) , “Blessed is G-d who saved
you from the hand of the Egyptians.” It is said that Moshe was
wrong in not saying Shira earlier. Gemora is critical of Moshe. But it
isn’t so, after all, Moshe did say the Shira. However, he didn’t
mention Yetzias Mitzraim. Why did he leave it out of the context?
Apparently, there was something missing in Yetzias Mitzraim which
did not generate the feeling. Then something occured to create the
feeling. What happened which did not happen seven days earlier?
Interestingly, just before Shira, the paragraph reads, “On that day,
they believed in G-d and in Moses His servant.” “Bayom Hahu” - it
was on that day. The Shira begins, “Oz Yoshir Moshe.” What is
“Oz”? (“then” did Moses sing). I would translate “Then they
witnessed the miracle and were impressed.” Only then did he recite
the Shira. Actually, even then he would have abstained but
suddenly, he realized that something occured which did not happen
a week ago. He realized that he shouldn’t be reluctant. He
consulted his mind: “Should I say Shira or not?” The decision was
“Yes”! This Nas - (miracle) - was worthy of Shira. Moshe, himself,
was impressed. “There I thought the miracle was not complete!”
Shouldn’t it have been instead at “Layl Shimurim” - (a night for
watching or waiting for) the very moment they became free?
Wouldn’t that be the appropriate moment? Apparently, Torah did
not think this was the right moment. Torah abstains at the point of
Layl Shimurim; it comes to fruition and conclusion right here -- at
the sea. When did Torah pick up the axiological conclusion at the
sea?
“Krias Yam Suf” is not only “nas” - miracle - but it is the entire
“geulah” - redemption. Therefore, “Bayom Hahu” - only that very
day did the people realize what “Yetzias Mitzraim” means to them.
“Vayar Yisroel Nas Al Sfas Hayom” - they saw the miracle at the
sea’s edge - is not just a physical redemption. Only then did they
recognize in retrospect what had happened. There were miracles
before then but those they didn’t understand. A man can see a
miracle and not recognize it as such. If a man could recognize all
the miracles that occur to him, he’d say “shira” all his life.
“Emunah” - faith is more than seeing a miracle. The people in

65
Mitzraim only saw or recognized “Etzbah Elokim” the “finger” of G-
d. Here, they recognized the entire “Yad” - Hand. Here began their
“Emunah”. The “pshat” - meaning - is “Bayom Hahu” - on that day
G-d redeemed the people not only physically and politically. One
can be a free person politically and physically but not spiritually.
Here there was spiritual liberty. G-d’s rebuttal to Moshe when he
argued against going to Egypt was “My purpose is not only physical
or political redemption for if such I could have chosen someone from
amongst the slaves who had been himself in servitude. That is not
My purpose! They must be made into a great spiritual people.
They (the people) didn’t realize it. At “Yam Suf” they realized there
is a greater form of liberty than that which most people understand.
That is what transpired at “Yam suf”; this is where the transition
occured, where they began to understand true freedom. It is a
completely different approach than at Egypt. Why at “Yam suf”?
Because suddenly they beheld a vision of “nevuah” - prophecy -
more sublime than that which the prophet Yehezkal saw (from the
greatest to the lowest milkmaid). What is meant by “miyad
Mitzraim” (saved from the hands of the Egyptians). It means saved
from the method of thinking in the Egyptian manner. “Miyad
Mitzraim” is not only liberation from Egyptian territory of slave
drivers but from Egyptian culture.
“Mays Al Sfas Hayom” (the Egyptians dead at the sea’s edge). It
wasn’t an ordinary conflict between slave and master. It was that at
“Yam Suf” they realized the truth. The physical defeat of Mitzraim is
not to be interpreted as the mundane Mitzraim but the spiritual
freedom. There is no Shira to be said unless the person himself
understands and comprehends. Moshe saw that in Egypt they
didn’t understand. All they saw was “Etzba” - finger. They didn’t
comprehend - only recognized it as master and slave, cruelty,
mundane, secular. Chazal (sages) said, “Zeh Kali” - (this is my G-d)
means every child recognized G-d.
Who are meant when Tenach refers to “Bnai Neviim” - the children
of the prophets? It means those who are trained, who are taught to
understand. Here, everyone became a “novi” - a prophet because
all understood. And this is why Moshe said Shira here but not there.
There, all they knew was that Pharaoh came in the middle of the
night and begged them to leave. Therefore “Oz Yoshir” - only then
were they able to sing. One of the most important Mitzvas is for a
human to understand a “nes” - a miracle and to interpret it.
There are two experiences - when G-d bestows a blessing in which
all is good, and second when there is a time of distress. One should
understand distress. One should not say “Chavivim Yisroel” -- that
one should live by pain. Instead, he should overcome it by all
means. When G-d bestows “Chessed” - lovingkindness - one should
recognize it and do all he can in his power to show his appreciation

66
to G-d. The sin of Job was that he didn’t utilize to good the
blessings of G-d. When you don’t recognize it, you cannot say
Shira. “Chazal” say that G-d wanted Cheziahu - the pious King of
Israel (under whose kingship the Assyrian army was miraculously
destroyed) to be the Messiah but he didn’t say Shira after the great
miracle because he didn’t understand the significance. Therefore,
he couldn’t be “Moshiach”. If there is “Emunah” there is Shira;
otherwise no Shira.
There is another aspect. Yetzias Mitzraim was a miracle which
didn’t spread easily throughout the Middle East. People didn’t
understand it easily, not even the “Mitzrim” themselves. The
leaving of the Jews made little impression upon the peoples of the
time. In fact, when theologians tell the virtues of Christianity, how
often do they mention our name? How often do they mention
Maimonides? They circumvent it. They talk of Thomas Aquinas
instead. This is one of the aspects of “Golus” - diaspora. “Yetzias
Mitzraim” had little luck; it made little impression.
“Krias Yam Suf” made an impression. What is “malchus of Rosh
Hashanah”? All nations will recognize the kingship of G-d.
Suddenly the “Krias Yam Suf” spread to all neighboring nations. (In
sedra Yisro - what was it that Yisro heard? - Rashi: “the crossing of
the Red Sea”.) They suddenly realized: “Here is a nation of an
enigma.” They felt that here was a singular people. This is what
happened at “Krias Yam Suf” - not “Yetzias Mitzraim”. “Krias Yam
Suf” led to “Matan Torah” - the giving of the Torah - but was almost
a cosmic event. Many nations came to Bilam who was a great
teacher to ask, “What is it?” He answered, “G-d has given His Torah
to His people!” What Chazal wants to explain is that “Matan Torah”
was not just for Jews but all nations came to Bilam, the scholar, for
explanation. But “Yam Suf” did not have the impact. “Krias Yam
Suf” was universal in proportion: “Yetzias Mitzraim” was local. Here
nations realized “there is a great nation - a great people.” After the
Jews reazlied the impact of “krias Yam Suf” then in retrospect they
reazlied the meaning of “Yetzias Mitzraim.”
At the seder, however, all the stress is placed on “Yetzias Mitzraim”.
They only place we mention “Krias Yam Suf” is in the “Hallel”. Why?
Because “Hallel” was generated by “Krias Yam Suf”. Another event
is not mentioned in the Hagadah - Eretz Yisroel. There is no
tendency to talk about the land because that belongs to a different
holiday, Shavouoth. We who live thousands of years later can
revalue this but they couldn’t. Therefore we say the “Hallel”. We
enjoye the privilege which Moshe did not enjoy.
“Zeh Kali V’anvayhu, Elokay Avi V’arom’menhu” (This is my G-d and
I will glorify Him; my father’s G-d and I will exalt Him). “V’anvayhu”
- I’ll build a temple - Bais Hamikdosh. Whatever I’ll do, whatever
Mitzvos, I’ll do it in a beautiful way. We want that when man shall

67
perform a mitzvah, it shall be not as a burden but because we love
it. We can do a mitzvah in an ugly way. For instance, although a
mitzvah, one can put on tefilin and take them off as a burden.
Secondly, I’ll be like Him. He is merciful, I’ll be merciful. Man
should imitate G-d, follow in his footsteps. It all has the same root.
“V’anvayhu” - all merge into “Ani V’hu” (I and He) - imitating being
like G-d. Rav Yochanan says that if Torah didn’t say it (being like G-
d) it would be blasphemy (for it would intimate that man is trying to
be G-d). How can man say I’ll be as G-d? We cannot create
metaphysically the earth, the atmosphere. But it means ethical
virtues. I don’t like the word “like G-d”. It means, whoever sees me
will be compelled to say, “G-d resides in me.” If we see a person
who is obnoxious, we say he is not a G-dly person. If we see a great
person we say, “he is divine”. Whoever meets one should say,
“That person is so fine, so sublime because he is divine -- because
there is “Shechina” (G-dliness) - there is something of G-d in him.
We don’t need proof that G-d exists, that He rules the world. A
person who doesn’t believe cannot say, “Only I exist”. But all the
arguments come from the cosmos. The proof of the creation is from
the Creator. If I walk by a beautiful house and everthing is exquisite
- the dwelling, the lawn, the trees, we want to see and to know the
builder, the master. This is what every man should want to reazlie
when he lifts his eyes and sees the stars, the sky; the presence of G-
d. When man wakes and says the “brochos” he comprehends the
great Creator. “Pesukei D’Zimri” is not related to miracles bu to the
beauty of the cosmos. This is how the human mind can understand
the cosmos. “I’ll give a better place to find G-d, not in the stars
millions of miles away but in my very self.” “I walked everywhere -
the streets, the market places, the cities; I didn’t find Him in
myself.” This is the “Zeh Kali V’anvayhu”. No human could exist in
the beautiful way unless the “Shechina” existed in him. His actions
are so impressive, so kind, so morally perfect only because the
“neshama” - the soul exists within him. As I said, to find G-d in me,
you can do a mitzvah beautifully or not beautifully. Many Orthodox
don’t! What is Kiddush Hashem (sanctifying G-d) or Chillul Hashem
(desecrating G-d)? Walking into a store and not paying at once but
procrastinating the payment causes the owner to misinterpret - “He
won’t pay,” even though he pays the next day.
What is: I’ll build him a “Bais Hamikdosh”? It doesn’t mean a
Temple of brick and stone. It means myself! G-d doesn’t need a
home. If G-d needs a home, it it man. Therefore, the common
denominator is, give the opportunity to G’d to speak through man.
“Give Him the microphone to address Himself -- not through long
sermons but through the actions of man. Through me, G-d has the
opportunity to address Himself. I’ll perform the mitzvos in the most
beautiful way!

68
What else do we find in the sedra? I should call today’s sedra the
“Doctrine of Private Property”. Americans in general, if they don’t
like something, put it into the waste basket. The way things are
now, we’ll almost all have a Marxist order. Has “yehadus” given us
a qualified approval of private property or a rejection of private
property? What makes possession immoral? It is a serious problem.
I believe that we have a comparison here in sedra B’shalach and in
sedra B’haloscha where in both instances do we find the people
complaining for food and receiving both the manna and the “Slav” -
the quail. Here in today’s section, we are told that the manna
should be picked up just so much for each morning, for each person.
What about the quail? Here, it doesn’t say how much each person
was to gather when the quail fell in the midst of them. In sedra
B’haloscha it is described in great detail that so much fell that there
was enough for all the people to feed for a month’s time and that
the ones who took the least gathered at least 10 groups.
Apparently, the “slav” was unlimited. What did Moshe require from
them concerning the manna? Basically, he told them, “Collect as
much as is necessary to feed the household from day to day. It was
one measure alloted to a household. Some grabbed more but it all
ended the same for all. Those who took more found it had shrunk.
Those who took too little found a full measure. All had but one
measure. First, it is alloted to each member and you cannot grab
more. Second, don’t hoard. Third, on Shabbos, you will have a
double portion so that you can prepare the previous day without
cashing on Shabbos. Why is Shabbos brought into the matter of
manna here. Aren’t we told all about Shabbos in the Ten
Commandments? There is a link between the two, Shabbos and
manna. The people were in slavery for hundreds of years. Egypt,
right to private possession was denied to them. Here, the manna
was the first thing which they owned through acquisition. People
who were released from concentration camps have said that their
first desire after liberation was to “make up” for lost time.
Here Moshe taught them the basic tenets of possession. That which
can be moral can also be immoral. First is Shabbos. Shabbos is the
foundation of private property. In order to be entitled to private
property, man must observe Shabbos. G-d created so He owns the
world. What is Shabbos? It means cutting off -- stopping. It is the
day when humans must recognize that G-d is master of the world.
No private property. The same is when a person is engaged in
celebration and hears suddenly bad news. He stops. Dynamics do
belong to G-d.
Basically, there is no private property. But Moshe said, “Before I tell
you how to function let me tell you of Shabbos.” In the Ten
Commandments, it’s only a short repetition. Basically, there is no
private property. However, six days shall you work. G-d gives it to

69
man! Man doesn’t take it but G-d gives it. It isa concession. When
we say, “Hamotzi Lechem Min Ha’aretz” it means “Man must also
participate.” True, without G-d’s blessing, all man’s work would be
of no avail. But man must work. Concerning the manna from
heaven, man had nothing to do but to pick it up. G-d gives; man
just has an illusion that he produces. “Lechem Min Hashamayim” -
bread from heaven requires Shabbos, one day a week. The “Chet of
M’chalal Shabbos” -- sin of Sabbath desecration basically is stealing,
that which doesn’t belong to us. By observing, we manifest belongs
not to us but to G-d.
Secondly, we are taught, “Zdokah and Chessed” - charity and
kindness. If we begin to hoard, we imply, “Only I am entitled to it.”
It destroys “zdokah”. Why did Elimelech, husband of Naomi in the
days of Ruth, die? Because he should not have thought only of
himself and left the poor. Thus, if they hoarded the manna, it
spoiled and they had to discard it. It taught us the lesson of sharing
with the needy if I have too much and he too little.

Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night,

February 9, 1980 “Yisro”
(Note: These notes are slightly abridged because I arrived a little
late.)
Point I There is a link between the end of last week’s sedra -
B’shalach and today’s sedra, Yisro. Last week’s sedra concludes by
telling of the sudden hostile attack by Amalek against Israel, newly
liberated from Mitzraim, at Refidim. We are told of the ensuing
struggle during which Joshuah led the battle which hung in a
balance. Moses ascended a mountain with Aaron and Hur. Sitting
on a rock, Moses’s hands were supported in elevation so that the
people might gain spiritual encouragement by elevating their
thoughts to G-d at the sight of Moses’s upright hands. At the end of
the day, Israel was victorious over Amalek.
Today’s sedra tells us that Yisro came because he heard of the
miracles of the splitting of Yam Suf and the war of Amalek. Directly
thereafter the Israelites came to “Midbar Zin” - the desert of Zin,
encamped at Har Sinai and received the Torah.
“Vayovo Amalek” - And Amalek came! What was the purpose of
Amalek’s coming? Amalek was in no position to personally benefit
for here was a nation just liberated from slavery, possessing no land
or great wealth. (In a previous lecture of a former year, the Rav
pointed out that all the objectives which an enemy hopes to gain in
normal warfare was lacking here. There was no land to gain, “they
were on the way in the desert.” There was no fame to gain. (Israel
was unknown - a group of slaves.) - There was no riches to gain;
they were weak. Then why attack? Because, “Lo Yoray Elokim,” -
Amalek didn’t fear G-d -- It was merely an act of hate. He would

70
have derived no profit had he won the war G-d forbid. It was simply
“hate”.
When G-d created the world, He didn’t completely eliminate “Tohu
Vovohu” - void and emptiness! This is what Amalek represented. It
was the inscrutable will of G-d taht “Tohu Vovohu” should not
disappear. In certain instances, the world suddenly goes beserk and
“Tohu Vovohu” breaks through the crust of decency and inundates
the world and brings forth destruction. From time to time, “Tohu
Vovohu” breaks through. I call it “Hester Ponim” (G-d hides his
face). There are certain malignant people who are the
representatives of “Tohu Vovohu” and this was Amalek.
How can you combat “Tohu Vovohu” in the world? The answer you
find in today’s sedra. It is the “Aseres Hadibros” - the Ten
Commandments -- the Torah. Thus, we have the link, the bridge
between the forces of evil (Amalek) and the forces of good (Torah).
How can you help mankind? It is by teaching the “Onochi Hashem
Elokecho” (I am your G-d_ - It is by teaching “Lo Sirtzoch - Lo Sinov -
Lo Tignov -” -- no murder, etc. Many have reservations about the
first half of the commandments. I believe that many reject the
image of G-d and the “Tohu Vovohu” becomes stronger. However,
all who do wrong are not necessariloy of the class of Amalek, of the
“Tohu Vovohu” - those given over to completely void and emptiness.
For instance, Pharaoh is indicative of man’s weakness but not
wickedness because of his concept of the sense of economic
security through slave labor. In other words, he based his
prosperity (wrong as it was) on slave labor. He had something to
gain. “If the Hebrew slaves go, I will lose their economic wealth!”
So, thus Pharaoh is not representative of “Tohu Vovohu”. In the
Torah, we find that others wouldn’t let the Israelites through their
borders due to conflict of interest. This is understandable.
However, here, “Vavovo Amalek” -- Amalek came from the distance.
Israel never heard of them -- didn’t know they existed. Simply,
Amalek couldn’t tolerate the “community of the Covenant”.
Pharaoh on the contrary was indicative of those who will look for
labor to pay cheaper. Amalek will pay “more for trefa” just to have
it on his table.
It is true of the Jewish people as a nation and true of an individual.
An individual may suffer, is in a state of depression, is frustrated.
Undergoing this experience of Israel -- the sudden unprovoked
attack of Amalek is sometimes destructive, sometimes constructive.
What are we told here? “They moved directly from Refidim
(battlesite against Amalek) to “Midbar Sinai” to receive the Torah.
The removing of the ring from the finger of Ahasverus and placing it
on the hand of Haman accomplsihed more in bringing Jews back to
the fold than the accomplishment of the teaching of 48 prophets.
The same is here at Refidim. It purified them. Man has a creative

71
power to change from the experience at Refidim to the great
heights of Sianai. It not for the experience of Refidim, I doubt if the
Jews would have been able to survive the Holocaust. At Refidim,
you acquire vision; you become ablt to do things you’d not be ever
able to do.
This is why Amalek is told before “Matan Torah”. In chapter 19,
line2 “Yisro” - the text reads, “Vayichan Shom Yisroel Neged Hahor”
- Israel encamped near the mountain. However, it is written in the
singular. Each man was an individual there; all were together -
singular in purpose. After the experience of Amalek they didn’t
spread helter skelter into the desert but all came to the mount. This
was all due to Amalek and the Torah was given to us to destroy the
evil of Amalek.
This evil, this Amalek will never be reconciled with Israel. We come
across certain characteristic traits of our enemy which in general is
to hate the Jew. All this made “Matan Torah” possible. It is one.
Point II The Torah was given to a small group of people, 600,000
persons, in comparison with the people of the world. But G-d
offered the Torah to many nations as Chazal tell us -- to Ishmael, to
Edom - to others. All refused because they wanted a sample of
what it contains. G-d was a traveling agent to sell “His
merchandise”. The Torah was given to us but with the prospect that
finally it will become the universal book of knowledge. How long
will it take? It might be tomorrow or perhaps thousands of years.
G-d wanted ti be be universal.
Who was Yisro? He was the first “Gayr” - convert. Whether he
came to Israel at the desert, before or after “Matan Torah is
disputed by Chazal”. Two aspects are understood! The first is that
the Torah can be implemented by man. (It is not a Law which is
impossible or impractical for man.) Some may ask, “Who can
observe all these laws? -- Shabbos -- Yom Tov -- Kashrus, etc.”
Many people declare, “You cannot even carry a handkerchief on
Shabbos; it is slavery! Who can observe Kashrus? You cannot enter
a restaurant!” The “Naase V’nishma (we will do and listen) means,
“We are convinced we can do it!” It is not something beyond us. If
there were a 14th principle of faith, I believe it should read: “I believe
that all the 13 principles are attainable.” “Naase” is “we can do it;
we will do it!”
Secondly, the Jew had to know and believe that the “chukim” --
statutes -- will be accepted universally. All nations, all mankind will
accept the Torah. But it has to be proved by a “gayr” and this is
Yisro. He was the “Goy” who says “Chochmaschem U’vinaschem” -
Your wisdom and your understanding. He is the one who says, “Your
wisdom is great for all!” He is the prototype who said that which we
expect mankind to say in the messianic era. Yisro shows that all
mankind is capable. Thus, first we are at Refidim. This is the story

72
of Amalek, the non-Jew who will never reconcile; it is evil
personified. With him, you will be engaged in war. On the other
hand, there is another segment of people that will reconcile, that
will recognize and accept. Yisro came to tell them that a desert
person can recognize. He (Yisro) is the real “Gayr” - the prototype.
This is why Torah tells of Refidim, then Yisro, then Matan Torah. It is
a bridge. I was asked a question. Why was it when Eliyohu Nahavi
was hiding as a fugitive in a cave in Sinai (from enemies) - and the
Spirit of G-d called him to emerge, first there was a tremendous fire,
wind, thunder -- he said, “This is not G-d!” Then there was a
whisper and he declared, “This is G-d!” G-d addresses in small
tones! If so, why was there thunder and lightning at the giving of
the Ten Commandments? The second time Moshe went up to
receive the new Tablets, it was given quietly, almost secretly. (No
one shall come up with you.) The first “luchos” - the Tablets were
with noise, even G-d it would be an ill omen (Ayin Horah) and G-d
knew it would be but ithad to be so in order for bilam and all the
sheiks and kings to be cognizant that the Torah had been given to
Israel. Thus, G-d addressed Himself to the whole world. The second
time - second “luchos” were quiet. It is only for Israel until that time
in the eschatological age when it shall then be for all.

Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday

evening, January 27, 1979

The Torah recorded three incidents about Moshe’s early years, his
birth, his encounter with the Mitzri and subsequent defense against
persecution and flight from Egypt, and his joining of Yisro (father-in-
law to be). There could have been more!

When we read carefully, not only the words tell us a story, but we
learn to decipher by that which is missing and not disclosed.
Pharoah not only prosecuted him for murder but condemned him for
murder. I would like to know what occured during that span of time,
perhaps fifty to sixty years, between his young years and having a
son Gershom. We have to read and interpret not the text but the
gap (the time gap). What happened during those circa 60 years?
We have no script. What does Torah tell us? By not telling us, it is
recorded in clear unequivocal manner. Torah itself simply doesn’t
tell!
It is a time when G-d covered His face. If we are judged on Rosh
Hashanah on face value only, without considering extenuating
circumstances, who can win? The whole concept of Rosh Hashanah
is changing “Din” (strict justice) into “Rachamim” (mercy). Not even
the Archangels can win and will be found wanting. But there is
another aspect which is worse than “Midas Hadin” -- strict justice. It

73
is called “Hester Ponim” -- hiding His face. “He has turned His back
on Israel; there is no confrontation. We address our prayer; He
doesn’t listen! This was the historical experience which the Jew
underwent in that period. It was tragic.
We find in Parsha Vayelech of Chumas Dvorim - Chapter 31 -
sentence 17, the following statement. “And My anger will wax hot
against him on that day and I shall avoid him and hide my face from
them and they shall be for prey when the many evils shall befall
them; And he shall say on that day, “Behold it is because G-d is not
with me that these evils have befallen me!” This is exactly what
happened then to the people, “Hester Ponim”. Why were they
slaves is a different problem and does not concern us here. He
executes the world in perfect justice and none said a word. They
worked as slaves in silence. That is why Torah doesn’t record. His
face was covered up.
Moshe wanted to become acquinted with his brethren about whom
he learned from his parents Amram and Yocheved. It was not only,
“Hester Ponim” on the part of G-d but on the part of Moshe on
account of what happened. In Parsha “Shmosh” chapter 2, line 14,
it records, “Ochayn Nodah Hadovor.” “Now I understand. I was
wrestling with a tremendous problem. Why are the Jews deserving
of such a fate? Now I udnerstand; there is no devotion among
them. You went and told the authorities; such people do not
deserve salvation!” These words of denunciation come from the
mouths of Jews against Moshe, their loving, devoted friend. For
him, it was not only flight from Pharoah but flight from his brethren.
He broke up his relationship with his brethren. “It is not what I
hoped for or imagined. I thought I would find the doctrine and
morality of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They are not ready! Thus,
he broke relationship and wanted to remain in Midyan as a
permanent resident, not a temporary sojourner. Jacob in his twenty
years with Laban always had in mind to return. “Garti” (I was a
sojourner); not so Moshe. In the same Chapter of Shmosh -2- line
15, the word “Vayeshev” is written twice. “He dwelt in the land of
Midyon - he dwelt at the well.” This double “Vayeshev” is the proof
of his intention of remianing there. “Chazal” (sages) tell us taht the
prince Moshe carried the burdens of his brethren on his shoulder
while he was in Egypt. He would have lived with them and left with
them. This incident, however, caused him to doubt if they were
worthy of leaving. He was confused and settled in Midyon -- settled
at the well. Moshe’s prayer was very important and never rejected
by G-d (except for his own misdeed). This, however, was one silent
period -- “Hester Ponim”. Thus, the Torah tells us a story not by
screaming but by silence. A motion of the hand sometimes tells
more than a long story. Silence is the best story teller of suffering.

74
The people who slaved in Egypt already felt that this is life; such
should it be.

Yayhi Bayomim HoRabim HaHaym “And it came to pass after many

days.” What does this mean? -- Those days which have not been
recorded -- the days of silence. It is interesting that the Torah says,
“HoRabim HoHaym”. Only G-d could interpret “how many days”.
People who suffer the torture of time lose the concept of time -- day,
night, hour. Time becomes abstract! You cease to feel time.
Sometimes it goes quickly, sometimes slowly. When one is a slave
or one is in fear there is not appreciation of time. To people who are
in danger or are very sick, time becomes a heap of minutes, days or
hours. “HoRabim” -- there was nothing to count. It was same
humiliation, the same ridicule. It was many days of silence. The
only differentiation was that day was light, night was dark. Thus
was it in the German concentration camps. They were days which
merely piled up. Thus Torah uses this condition to convey a long
time without significance. We Jews have experienced it not only in
Mitzraim but much more in the Holocaust. This picture is projected
merely by the few words. “Hayomim HoRabim HaHaym”. What
happened? “Vayomos Melech Mitzraim -- the Egyptian King died!
Why is this so important for us to know? Rambam explains that
quite often when the Jew meets with hostility or enmity, he is
inclined to assume that merely a certain government leader
displays hostility and calls it “Coincidental”. People said it couldn’t
happen in Germany because there had been good interrelationship
for so many years. “How about Hitler?” The answer: “Merely
coincidental! Once he achieves power, he’ll forget anti-Semitism!”
However, unfortunately it isn’t so.
The same was in Egypt. They believed that once there is a change
in government the new King will be progressive -- a different type of
individual. Instead, according to Rambam, the old dies and the new
is worse. I believe the answer is simple. We know what the death
of a King in Egypt meant. They built pyramids and enshrined the
royal dead. Now the Jews were assigned the job of building the
pyramids. The job was assigned to them and that which was bad
previously became unbearable now. This was in addition to their
other labors. Torah is not merely a script but has a beautiful
fragrance.
“Vayaonchu” -- and they sighed. We are told that they moaned;
those were sounds emitted by people in pain. What Torah tells us is
that “Vayaonchu” was unbearable. The same was in Germany. “To
the right - to the left” - life or death according to the whims. Why
“Vayaonchu”? It is a strange sound -- not intentional. I cry when I
want G-d to help but “Vayonchu” is not speech. It is the sound
which can be produced by animal as well as man. It is the defense

75
mechanism of survival. G-d granted this defense mechanism to all
creatures. Before the “Melech Chodesh” - the new King, there was
not even a sound.
What is “Vayizaku”? Is is complaining! It is part of the defense
mechanism. It is the natural instinct. “Vayizaku” is “asking why”.
These are the various stages. First, there is no complaining at all --
complete silence. “They night of silence”. Second is the death of
the King - “Vayaonchu”; they felt pain and began to moan. Third is
“Vayizaku” -- they complained -- resented, protested. Suddenly,
they regained human dignity. Dathan and Aviram were subhuman
because a human doesn’t complain against one who is ready to
help. Fourth was “Acceptance”. “Vatal Shavosom” -- their appeal,
their prayer arose. Once their prayers came up, He gave them
credit for all the steps they had gone through in silence and G-d
shortened their stay. These are the semantics, the fragrances of the
text.
Now Torah should say, “Vayared Hashem L’Hatzil” (G-d descended
to help them). Instread, Torah now begins to tell us of Moshe.
“Vayar Elokim Es Bnai Yisroel” (And G-d saw the children of Israel).
Of course, G-d saw the children of Israel. What is imparted to us? A
few sentences later - sentence 7 - it says “Ro-oh Roisi”. “You saw
them superficially with one eye; I see them as well with both eyes!”
Moshe, you made a terrible mistake because one individual wronged
you. You still remember but after sixty years you should forget
already. But you were wrong in your evaluation. They are not bad.
Their surface may have been bad. Sometimes they do not display
the “Chesed” of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov but deep down they
are different. I looked deeply. Three months after “Yetzias
Mitzraim” you will be confronted by a new people who understand
“Onochi Hashem” (I am G-d). This is “Ro-oh Ro-Isi”. I see them
through and through but your estimation is wrong. They are
worthy. You must awaken them, teach them! You escaped not only
from Pharoah but from your brethren. These two words represent
the finest words of Yahadus and T’Shuvah - faith and repentence. If
the sin has penetrated the deepest recesses there is no possibility
for “Tshuvah” except for the two words, “Ro-oh-Ro-Isi”. I see deeper
and more profoundly.
Then there is “Vayada Elokim” (and G-d knew them). “Yizaker”
means to be concerned to to feel. We say on Rosh Hashanah
“Habayn Yakir Li. Yeled Shaashuim.” “It is a beautiful child to me --
my baby; every time I speak of him, I recollect, I feel, I share his
trouble. I am restless when he is in trouble. I mention him with a
tremor in my heart!”
Going back to Egypt, therefore “Vayada Elokim”, “He suffered with
him -- he felt with him. “Vayada Elokim” follows “Vayizaker Elokim”
G-d liberated Himself with Israel. Liberation meant also liberation of

76
G-d. This is confirmed by the double expression “Vayizaker” and
“Vayada”. He suffered with them and was freed from bondage with
them. The whole drama of Yitzias Mitraim and the whole vision will
be the final redemption.
All that depended on one thing, something which meant a lot to G-
d. If this condition had not been met, it would have prevented the
“Geulah” the redemption. Only if Moshe will accept the mission! --
providing Moshe accepts. If he refuses there is no redemption. G-d
is the redeemer but likes to have the tool for redemption, the man
to do the mission. Why did G-d have to explain all this? “Laych”
(Go) would have been sufficient. Because G-d wanted Moshe to
acquiese. A person cannot be a “sheliach” or an agent if he doesn’t
want to accept. A mission must have the consent of the “sheliach”.
What else is Ro-oh Ro-Isi indicative of?
What new institution is introduced? What was Moshe doing? He
was a shepherd; he had forgotten the people. He wanted to forget,
he tried to forget and erase it from his mind. They were not
deserving to be represtatives of G-d. Moshe was not ready fro them
and tried to get further and further away from their sufferings. As
long as he is merely “Roah Tzon” (a shepherd) he cannot be the
redeemer. When G-d wants to punish or to save, He doesn’t send
an angel but a human. He sends him as a “sheliach”. Therefore, He
made everything dependent upon Moshe. He must change his
opinion of the people; he must change from shepherd to redeemer.
That is why G-d spent so much time, seven days, speaking with
Moshe. And Moshe did not give in until the final day. When he
finally said he’ll go, G-d accepted. G-d’s job was not to persuade
Pharoah but Moshe.

Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night,

February 3, 1979
“Humility of Moses”

We spoke last week of the “parsha” which tells the story of silence -
“Hester Ponim” - G-d hides His face. Extreme despair is best
described by not telling anything. Here we have an interim, a
separation of approximately 60 years time. We know that Moshe
accepted Yisro’s offer but much we don’t know. What he did. What
he said. What events occured are not revealed. But is is not
important. After the matter of keeping the flock of “Kohan Midyon”
(the priest of Midyon - Yisro) - there is a strange word (Chapter 3 -
line 1 of Shmosh) “Vayinhag Es Hatzon Achar Hamidbar”) - “And he
led the sheep towrads the wilderness”. Instead of “Achar” it should
be El Hamidbar which meant “to”. Some interpret that Moshe
actually kept the flock in the furthest part of Midyon - therefore
“Achar” (after). This was in keeping with the principles of Abraham,

77
namely removing one’s flocks from “G’zayla” - infringement upon
other peoples properties.
In the previous sentence we find: “U’Moshe Hoyo Roeh Es Tzon”
(and Moshe was keeper of the sheep). The word “Hoyo” teaches us
that it is not past tense but rather a participle. It is not a statement
about what he did but who he was, his work, his occupation. It is a
description of the person - “Moshe, the shepherd”. “Vayinhag Es
Hatzon” and he led the flock, “Vayovo El Haar Elokim” (and came to
the mountain of G-d). This is the past tense. “It once happened.”
He came to Sinai - to the place where he shouldn’t infirnge on other
people’s territory. However, this is to mean, “Hu Hoyo Nohages
Hatzon”. He used to always come to the “Har Elokim”. Thus Rashi
informs us that it was always his custom to go there so that the
sheep shouldn’t pasture or graze in other people’s place. This
would be “G’zayle” - robbery as the conflict between Abraham’s and
Lot’s shepherds. Abraham’s shepherds were trained to be careful of
other people’s money. However, if you interpret the word
“Vayinhag”, it means he reached it only once in many years. My
suggestion is that the whole “posek” should be interpreted as a
participle. If so how can Rashi make such a statement? It would
seem that it were merely an accident his reaching the Mount.
Now the question, “Vayovo Har Elokim”. If you interpret it in terms
of a participle what does it mean? After all, why is it called “Har
Elokim?” It did not have that connotation yet; it would only be so
inthe future. If the whole “posek” is a participle (many, many
times) why was it necessary to bring them here to a mountain?
(Certainly not much of a place for grazing.)
The answer to this we find in Sedra “Shlach” of Chumash Bamidbar
- Chapter 13, line 22. It states, “Vayalu Banegev Vayovo Ad
Chevron”. “Vayalu” (They all come up in the south - the 12 spies) -
Vayovo (and He Caleb) (singular) came to Chevron to offer prayers
that the counsel of the spies should fail). Otherwise, instead of
“Vayovo” (singular) it should state Vayovou (They all came to
Chevron). We have to understand that here with Moshe it was
identical. He was not the only shepherd of Yisro. Yisro was a rich
man, had a very large flock and many workers. They were the other
shepherds with whom he left the sheep constantly and would go up
himself to be alone at “Har Elokim”. What did he do? It was the
same objective as Caleb -- to pray for his people, his brother whom
he left behind in Egypt. At the beginning, he wanted to leave them,
to divorce himself from them. “Now I understand! Are they worthy
of liberty?” They informed the authorities knowing only too well
that he was defending his brethren. “They are not worthy.” This is
what prevented Moshe from accepting at once! Therefore, he was
praying that his brothers should rise spiritually, with dignity -- not to
inform on their own people. We understand from the Holocaust the

78
principle of informing. When the Germans formed the
“Judenpolizei” some gave their lives to save their brothers, many
could not rise to the occasion and informed. Moshe was startled!
“A Jew should collaborate with the enemy?” So he came always to
Har Elokim to pray. How long Moshe prayed, we don’t know any
more than Caleb. He also prayed concerning the Egyptians that
tyrants should understand basic human rights. Converting people
into slaves is not only immoral but this type of a society will
eventually decay into ruin. He wanted to inform the Egyptian
government of pragmatism. Thus, Moshe constantly made a
pilgrimage to “Har Elokim”.
What answer did he receive? It was silence! It was the time of
“Hester Ponim” (hidden face). Hakodesh Boruch Hu has given us
only the promise of hearing prayer, not answering Tefilah. This is
applicable to all peoples and even to animals. Thus, no answer.
What happened? Once after many years, on a routine visit -- this
time something great happened. “Vayara Maloch” (An angel
appeared). I would interject two words, “Pa’am Achas” (One time it
happened). When I interpret this posek the best I can, I turn to the
“M’forshim” -- the commentators. There are two problems! At the
very first revelation, when Moshe reached the “Har” and began to
pray he saw the “Sneh” - the bush. “And an angel of G-d appeared
to him in a flame in the center of the bush, etc.” It tells us that an
angel revealed himself, not G-d. Then it says, “And G-d saw that he
turned aside to gaze, and the L-rd called to him from the midst of
the bush, etc.” Now, instead of angel, G-d Himself appears. What
happened to cause this change, “Malach” to G-d? In fact, I’ll
analyze it but first want to tell a story which occurred in Europe.
The Gaon of Vilna excommunicated the Chassidim of his time
because of their desire to change certain vital tenets of faith. The
letters urging excommunication were sent out by the Gaon of Vilna
and his council to many European communities that the rabbis
should sign the excommunication. There was one notable
exception. Rav Rafael of Hamburg, a great halachic scholar
received the letter and refused to sign. An argument commenced, a
delegation was sent to him to convince him and yet he refused.
Subsequently, in defending his stance, he employed the following
rebuttal. When the Al-mighty sent Abraham on the mission of the
Akedah of Yitzchak, who was it who sent Abraham. It was G-d
Himself. When it came to the critical moment of saving Yitzchak it
was the Angel who called to Abraham. The answer is that to kill a
Jew only G-d can order it. To save a Jew even an angel can do it.
The same applied here. “The Vilner Gaon may be an angel but in
effect, excommunicating is tantamount to killing. For this I need the
order from G-d!”

79
Also at the “Sneh” we have the same application. The first call was
to liberate or save the Jews. This could be done by the “Malach”.
But we find directly the posek, “He (G-d) said “Do not draw nigh,
remove the shoes from your feet for the place where you stand is
holy.’” To draw too close to the “Shchina” of G-d could have been
Moshe’s death. Therefore, G-d had to speak. Interestingly, the
Torah tells us that the “Sneh” burned but was not consumed.
“HaSneh Aynenu Ukol”. It should say, “Maduah HaSneh Aynenu
Ukol”. (Why wasn’t the bush consumed?” Instead, the words are,
“Maduah Lo Ivar HaSneh”? This was not just a unique event but a
great event as far as events are concerned. He attributed great
significance to this. Moshe already felt intuitively that something
great was happening, that which he waited for many years. If he
were merely interested why the bush was not consumed, he
wouldn’t be so intrigued. What he saw was a fire in the middle
(Mitoch) but did not spread to the periphery. This is what is meant
by “Lo Ivar HaSneh”. What kind of a fire is it which is limited to the
center and doesn’t spread to the periphery? It is restricted only to
the center.
Why did G-d do this? There are two separate miracles! In order to
draw Moshe, to catch his attention is “Maduah lo Ukol” -- why isn’t it
consumed. The second is “Lo Ivar” -- why is the fire limited to the
center. Basically, it is the same answer. The “Sneh” didn’t burn; it
retained its characteristic. The fire was limited to a center point.
The point is, why didn’t the fire spread? This was a test of Moshe. If
he merely asked, “Lo Ukol”, why isn’t it consumed, he might not
receive the leadership. But, “Why doesn’t it spread,” shows his
capability to be a leader. “If I were looking for a diplomat, for an
ambassador, I wouldn’t have chosen you. There are better
qualified! But I am not looking for a military marshal; I need a
teacher. I need someone to take a people, degraded by torture, by
slavery, by humiliation and to elevate them. The time allotted is
short -- merely three months. They are degraded. Some are
informers. They didn’t cry loudly enough! Only one man can do it.
It is Moshe despite “Kvad Peh” -- slowness of speech. Moshe
understood at once what G-d wanted. This represents the quality of
“Yahudus” - faith. Often G-d is far away but from the distance
communicates with man. When G-d told Moshe to build a
“mishkan”, Moshe was frightened. “Is it possible that I shall build
for a an abode of twenty foot square, Master of the Universe? “
Shlomo Hamelech asked the same question. The founders of
“Chabad” says that here we find Chassidus. G-d declares, “If I want,
the Heavens cannot contain Me. But ‘Im Rotze’ - if it is My will, I
descend from the transcendental world and compress Myself into
one cubic foot of the “Kaporos” -- the cover of the Ark. This is what
G-d wants to teach Moshe. In the center of circle there is no

80
dimension. G-d can expand ad infinitum and if He wants, He
occupies no space at all.
Basically, what does Torah want the Jew to do? We must imitate G-
d. Why is there slavery in the world? Because humans want power,
to expand - more space, more space. “Midas Hatzimtzum is how to
occupy space. This is humility. Moshe said, “Osuro Noh” - let me
turn aside and see the great wonder. As G-d contracts let man
contract. Let man demonstrate humility, smallness - let him
contract, shrink. This was the Serpent’s wrong advice to Adam and
Eve. “Expand like G-d!” What does G-d want? The opposite.
“Contract.” Sometimes ambition is good but only if guided by
Divine law. In inter-human relationship absolute honesty is
required. Contract yourself; do not try to grab all you can.
In Chumash Devarim - Sedra V’Zos HaBrocho, Chapter 33, line16,
there is Moshe’s blessing to the tribe of Joseph, “ Urtzon Shochni
Sneh” (Him that dwelt in the bush). G-d who first dwelt in the bush.
This was the blessing to Yosef, the most capable of the brothers, the
greatest businessman and innovator. “G-d should grant him that he
never forgets “Midas Hatzimtzum” -- humility. “Enjoy this world, be
attractive, be successful, pass it on to your generations, but
remember -- G-d does not just reside in the entire universe but in
the “Sneh” -- the lowly bush. Try not only to satisfy all desires but
learn humility!” Thus with Moshe! G-d could have spoken from
thunder and lightning -from the entire universe, but it was not so. It
was from nothing. Yes, try to improve yourself but always keep in
mind the “Sneh”. Now Moshe realized at once why the fire didn’t
spread. Now he learned humility and this is how he was appointed!

Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik Saturday evening,

February 10, 1979.
“Parsha B’Shalach”
In today’s Parsha B’Shalach we come across strange words in the
first 5 P’sukim. “Vayhi B’Shalach Paroh Es Hu’om, V’loh Nochom
Elokim Derech Eretz P’lishtim, etc.” In all parshas, G-d is referred to
by the name “Shem Havaya” -- the Tetragrammation (Yud Kay Vav
Kay). Here it is written “Elokim”. There in the entire Sedra we find
the name “Hashem” straight through except for the very beginning.
We find a similar question in the encounter between Hashem and
Moshe at the “Sneh” -- the bush. (Shmos, Chapter 2, line 23).
“Vayhi Bayomim Horabim Hohaym”; we find again “Elokim”. Also in
Shmosh (Chapter 1, line 17), “And the midwives feared G-d and did
not do as the King of Egypt bade them and saved alive th male
children) -- again Elokim! Again at the “Sneh” in sentence 4, we
find angel of “Hashem” and then “Hashem saw that he turned aside
to see and “Elokim” called to him. Further in sentence 11, “And
Moshe said to Elokim, who am I etc”. Finally in sentence 14, G-d

81
granted Moshe permission to call Him Hashem. “Ehyeh Asher
Ehyeh”. We’d like to have clarity why Torah changes it several
times.
Let us analyze why Hashem and why Elokim. The name “Havayah”
was revealed to Moshe when G-d was about to send him. Moshe
asked His name and was answered, “Havayah”. Before that we
always imploy Elokim. The following was evolved by the great
commentator Kozaya. After Creation we always find the “Havaya”.
When G-d reveals Himself to man it is through two media. There
are for example the ideas of Y’hi Ohr (let there by light). It was
called into existence and it does exist! Secondly, this also includes
the function and existence of light. It is always constant; it never
changes. A philosopher declared that he couldn’t see a tree
changing its phenomena in a fraction of an instant. In other words,
a tree cannot be barren one minute and covered with leaves the
next. Such is with light. It is a steady identical performance.
Creation is not only the beginning but the continued function. If
there were Cosmos instability, there’d by no scientific research.
This is “Y’hi Ohr”. This is Elokim. As Elokim, He created, carries and
sustains the world. And He makes it function constantly. We find
this idea expressed in the 104th Psalm of Tehilim - “Borchi Nafshi”.
What is the idea in Sedra Haazinu that Moshe should invoke Heaven
and Eearth? One interpretation is that he invoked longevity --
something which exists for ever as witnesses. Rashi quotes another
interpretation. “Did heaven ever change its activities? Did the sun
ever reverse its course, rising in the west and setting in the east?
Did wheat planted ever produce rice or oats? There is a routine in
nature and now should follow. Thus, Y’hi Ohr is not only creation ex
nihilo but constancy. G-d supervises function of the Cosmos. This is
basically the function of our daily Brochos. G-d reveals to man
through the Cosmic nature. This is simply His dynamics. He is the
Bal Hakochos -- master of strength.
Then there is the “Shem Havaya” as Kuzaya says. It is relationship
of G-d and man. As two people become acquainted, G-d calls man
and reveals Himself. “I am G-d!” It is the principle of prophecy.
“Havayah” is direct relationship to man. The Alm-ghty befriends
man and makes man talk to Him. This is Maimonides idea. There
are two aspects of prophecy. “He inspires man -- man establishes a
relationship. After the conversation ends man is burdened with a
load. “Maaso B’yad Hashem” -- burdened by hand of G-d. One does
not turn away just as that! It is not light, it is a heavy load for man.
Thus Moshe was not eager to accept and the same was true of
Jeremiah. Moshe’s burden was not as onerous but Jeremiah had to
come to the people, tell them that the people will be killed, that
their King will be blinded, that their Temple will be destroyed. It was
not an easy job and it was easy to see his reluctance. Neither

82
Moshe nor Jeremiah were eager to accept. According to
Maimonides, prophecy (the state of it) should be the final objectiv
for which every man should aspire. It is to reach a level spiritually
at which “N’vuah” (prophecy) could be possible. When you meet
with G-d, man is burdened a great load. A covenant is signed! G-d
calls man often. We find ion scriptures, “Abraham, Abraham!
Shmuel, Shmuel. Moshe, Moshe.” In Abraham’s case he searched
for G-d a long time- many years but at the end of the revelation it
resulted in a covenant. No more was Abraham a free man! Thus
not only a nation was formed but a great nation (Goy Godol). When
he wants to redeem man, he will do it not by Himself but through
the medium of man. It lasted seven days because G-d needed the
“Sheliach” the messenger. Now G-d makes a promise, in spite of
suffering the individual or antion will be redeemed and rewarded. If
redemption is not possible in the natural way, G-d will suspend the
Cosmic order for a fraction of a second to implement the promise
which He made to the covenental founder. This is represented by
the Tetragrammation - the “Shem Havaya”. It is the “Shem
Havaya” which suspends the natural. We find this in Exodus! There
was no war. If there were, Israel would have lost, In today’s Sedra
we find 600,000 Israelites against 600 Egyptian chariots. Why the
great fear? We find this with Amalek. Amalek was not a major or
powerful force. But here the Israelite had to fight. If G-d did not
suspend the natural Cosmos the Jews would never have left. If it
were postponed there would not be a community left -- died to
assimilation. This suspension of the natural -- this speeding process
is represented through “Shem Havaya”.
Elokim works through a slow process. The people would not
understand this. A basic change had to take place in their
personality. Under these conditions of natural process it would have
taken hundreds of years for them to be ready for “Kabalas HaTorah”
-- receiving the Torah. “If I have to wait for them to repent and
come back, they never will.” “Midas Elokim” (natural order) should
have been the entire 400 years. Instead, we find it in four
generations (Moshe, Amram, K’hos, Levi). Rabbi Akivah says that
the 400 years were converted to 4 generations. This is “Midas
Havaya” the speeding process. Thus Moshe said, “It is too soon!”
Medrash says, “When I tell them of redemption they will say, ‘It is
too soon!’” G-d says, “if not now, it will never happen!”
“M’Karetz al Heorim.” “Havaya” acts instantaneously it eliminates
the slow process. If they acted differently, (no danger of Avodah
Zorah). Elokim would have prevailed. Instead, “Havaya”! This is
why the name told to Moshe was, “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh.” Thus they
will be able to say in such a short time, “Naase, V’Nishma”. The
same will also apply in the days of Moshiach.

83
Events which are happening today - the painfully slow process, the
accusations and counter accusations can be appreciated from the
standpiont of Elokim. That is one explanation. Another explanation
is that if you extend the idea of “Havaya” it should be extended to
Esther. The idea that the megilah should be incorporated into the
holy writings and that Purim should be accepted by Sanhadrin is
indicative of “Havaya” - a sudden divine change. There have been
instantaneous reactions in everyone’s life. That which profoundly
changes our lives is “Havaya”. We find in Torah, Etzba Elokim (a
slow process) but at the sea they saw “Yad Hashem” - Havaya.
In today’s “Shira” not a word is mentioned about Mitzraim. There
was no “Shira” about Mitzraim. The only one who praises G-d for
Egypt is Yisro. “Blessed is G-d who saved you from Egypt!” Moshe
only said “Shira” about that which the people saw and were
impressed. The people didn’t realize “Havaya” at Egypt (the
process was too painfully slow). They did realize it at “Yam Suf”. G-
d can get along without thanks if we are not impressed. Moshe did
not feel that “Shira” was necessary until the people were
impressed, until they accepted G-d’s kingship. Then he said Shira!
“Eser Makos” (the ten plagues) did not impress them. The same
applies to each person! Some are sensitive; some find Havaya
every day. “The fact that I can walk, I can speak -- I can still teach
Chumash every Saturday at my age!” It all depends on how we
look at it. We need the double approach. Everything is natural and
many are supernatural. It depends on the individual.
In Sedra “Vayera”, in the first few lines, Rashi says: “They (the
Patriarchs) knew me as “Kal Shaddai”. (It is sufficient that I promise
you). I was not known to them “B’Midas Hashem” -- the attribute of
Havaya. They didn’t see the absolute truth! I made promises and I
didn’t fulfill. (I promised them the entire land. Yet Abraham had to
pay 400 Shkolim for a grave site. Yitzchak had to struggle for wells.
Yaakov had to pay 100 pieces of silver for a parcel of land in
Shchem.) It means their era was the era of promises. There is the
era of promises (short - it is quick to promise) -- and the era of
fulfillness (it takes long to fulfill). As humans, they die before the
realization of the promies). “You Moshe are fortunate that you live
in the time of fulfillment. Abraham knew me as Elokim. I could
burden you as I did Abraham. It will take a long time! Those are
the promises which we find in Sedra “Haazinu” - for the Messianic
future. That which I promise now will come quickly because I reveal
myself as “Havaya”. “Havaya” has no patience. That which shall
happen comes instantly.
Now reverting to the opening statement - we have all the Elokims in
the first few sentences. For a short time, for a few seconds He
availed Himself as “Elokim” - the circumventing of the land of the
Philistines, the trek in the desert, the roundabout route. He took

84
them out with “Havaya” but here there are tremendous risks with
“Elokim” - with the slowness of natural order. He changed the route
from straight to circuitous. Had the Havaya been used, then Bnai
Yisrael would have reached Eretz in 10 days. There would have
been a change in history. If Moshe would have brought them in, the
Kings of Canaan would have given up instantly, there would have
been no Temple destruction, no expulsion. The whole history would
have changed. But we don’t understand and have no right to
question! The risk of taking them by Philistia was dangerous. They
might have returned. It is hard to reconstruct the route. Why so
circuitous? Under “Havaya” they would have been protected -
would have reached their goal very quickly. There is the circuitous
route of Elokim because Moshe couldn’t entre and it is very tragic.
Moshe wanted the kingship, not kingship as we know it for he was a
King. He wanted the “Messianic Kingship” and G-d said “no”. This
is the kingship which was denied to him. Had he taken them by the
“Plishtim” as “Havaya” it would have been completely different.
Now in Shmos (Chapter 3, line 3) why does does “Havaya” change
to Elokim? G-d saw that Moshe turned aside (to see the burning
bush). “Sor” does not mean to move. We find similar wording in
Bereshis (Chapter 19- line 3) concerning the angels at Lot.
“Vayosuru Aylov” - (they turned to him). The angels departed from
the usual route to zig-zag -- to come through the back way in order
to mislead the people of Sodom. Here we find with Moshe, “Osuro
No” (I will turn aside). Not only Moshe saw the burning “Sneh”; --
others saw it and disregarded it. Their philosophy was simple,
materialistic approach. Theirs was not to see miracles. To them,
there would be some explanation why the bush didn’t consume
faster. Only Moshe saw it as a G-dly process. Moshe said, “Osura -
Hamarah Hagodol” -- “I’ll turn, I’ll study it; it is out of the ordinary.
It belongs in the category of “Havaya”. G-d declares “There is
someone cpapble of representing me as “Havaya” -- not in natural
terms but in transcendental terms. G-d addressed Himself as
“Elokim” because Moshe would be confused. “You Moshe, will be
the representative not only of Elokim -- the natural order, but a
representative of “Shem Havaya”. “I am the G-d of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob. I’ll have to change the order! You’ll have to represent
me as “Havaya”. All promises will be quickly revealed.

Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night,

Feb 17, 1979

There are some questions connected with this week’s Sedra of Yisro.
The last chapter of the previous sedra B’Shalach ended with the
story of the attack of Amalek. This week’s sedra commences with
the advent of Yisro, Moshe’s father-in-law, and his advice to Moshe.

85
What is the continuity? It is hard to understand. Another question
is that we call it, “And Yisro heard” but basically the parsha is
devoted to his coming to the desert, being received by Moshe, his
introduction to the elders of Israel. The major part of the sedra of
course is devoted to the giving of the Ten Commandments. Yisro
was the first one to praise the name of G-d in connection with
“Yetzias Mitraim”. It is said that it is a shame that Moshe, Aaron and
the 600,000 Israelites didn’t sing the “Shira” as soon as they left.
The “Shira” at the sea doesn’t mention Mitzraim. The entire
description is of the miracles at the Red Sea. Gemora is critical of
this. The first one to praise the Exodus per se was Yisro.
First, it is strange why Moshe didn’t mention it. Second, the Torah is
eager to single out Yisro as a great personality. He also intuitively
guessed at the judicial system which the Torah was to incorporate
and which G-d would sanction. Even now we have the same judicial
system as recommended by Yisro. It is interesting that in sedra
Devarim - Chapter 1, line 9 - Yisro is not mentioned. “And I said to
you at that time, I cannot carry you alone!” This system would have
been introduced even without his advice, but why is it recorded?
The fact of his advice apparently is of great importance! He is
described in positive terms. Moshe begged him to remain with
Israel. According to Chazal, Yisro did join the community because it
is recorded that the children of Kenites (Yisro’s family) lived in Eretz.
Why didn’t the judicial system occur to Moshe? Why did it occur to
Yisro? The following is why “Hashgocha” (Providence) precipitated
the series of events on the strength of Yisro’s advice.
The main theme of today’s sedra is “Matan Torah” to the
community which was started by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They
were already a great nation at the Exodus but at “Matan Torah” they
became not only great but holy. “Kedusha” was added on Sinai.
The purpose of elevating Israel to the exalted position has a
universal aspect. Yisro was charged with passing on the Torah so
that humanity should accept! It is yet a long distance to the goal
but a goal it is. We have the vision portrayed by many prophets.
Many peoples dislike that the Jews were charged with the mission.
Whether we have fulfilled our part is a different story. “My spirit will
flow over every spirit, every flesh!”
An entire prayer revolves about this theory! The Torah was given
exclusively to us but for a limited time. At the Messianic age it will
then be for all. This Tefilah is the one of “Machroysanu” of Rosh
Hashanah, of which “Aleynu is part”. “And it is said the saviours
shallup on Mount Zion to judge the Mount of Esau and the
sovereignty shall be the L-rd’s. And it is said the L-rd shall be King
over all the earth; and in that day shall the L-rd be One and His
name One!”

86
It means the Torah will bcome the universal book of morality. These
“Tefilos” are based on the prophet Isaiah and others. At present,
the Torah is the exculsive possession of Israel but at the Messianic
age ti will be passed on to the entire world. That is why the Torah
was given amongst thunder, lightning and noise. The whole world
trembled! All the creatures taht came into the world were
frightened. It started with a universal affair and ended with a
private affair. After all, the 600,000 was a small group in
relationshiop to the world. It was covenant similar to marriage
between man and wife; it was pirvate. Yet all knew it was of cosmic
proportions, including not only the 600,000 ex slaves but all
mankind. All knew although they didn’t understand. But basically it
was a private affair. We have both propositions in “Shofros”. Not
only the human beings but all creatures were involved. It taught all
of nature how to live together! The Torah will teach “Chesed” and
kindness not only to humns but to all elements of nature - in the
eschatological era of Moshiach! All will become cooperative.
Question: was it private or for all? Answer: Yes -- but in the future.
It is to redeem the world -- not only the Jewish people. For a limited
period of time it is limited but ultimately it will become cosmic.
When this will be we don’t know. Jacob wanted to reveal the
“Eschatological Era” but it was removed from him. The element of
“Chesed” will be injected into the cosmic nature. The Torah will
become the guiding book of all nature. But again, for the present
time it is a private affair.
This is why thunder and lightning accompanied it! Why? If it was a
private affair why not give it quickly and in solitude? Rashi says in
sedra “Ki Sisso” that when G-d told Moshe to ascend and He will
inscribe the second Tablets it was different. The first ascent was
accompanied with thunder and lightening but the second time, “No
one shall accompany you.” It will be complete secrecy. Why?
“Publicity caused the failure, the evil eye.” Modesty is better. Then
why the first time with alarm, audible throughout he cosmos?
Because the peoples of the world had to know that this giving will
have great significance for the entire world. The world had to be
notified. Therefore, the second time the world know already. “Now
I don’t want a single soul to know.” There is a question to be raised!
Who posed the question? Amalek! According to Chazal, G-d sent
agents to several nations concerning acceptance of the Torah. All
rejected. It is related “Lo Sirtzoch” - (do not kill). Esau rejected -
“Do not steal - commit adultery” - others rejected. There is a low in
“G’ayrus” (conversion). You cannot impose it unless a person is
ready! A man cannot become a “gayr” unless he feels he is able to
comply with it. If a person declares, “I am not morally strong
enough, you cannot impose it! This in effect is what Esau and
Ishmael declared and the Al-mighty accepted it. If you do impose it,

87
it is invalid. Now is “Yehodus” (providence) ready to give this
doctrine to the whole world? Is the world or mankind ready? Do
men have the spirit to accept this? It means “losing money in the
strict matter of honesty, etc.” It is a very costly affair economically.
The peoples are not ready. Is humanity per se ready to accept our
way of life? Actually, we the teachers are lacking too. We engage
in “Loshen Horah” (slander), we are not above chaeting the
government, etc. Economy is very ruthless. Karl Marx criticised our
form and introduced his own which is even worse. Many of the
people today are not ready to accept the “Choshan Mishpat” (the
breastplate of justice). If he is not ready, why should he be
converted? Is the world ready to accept this kind of a Torah? This
doubt was aroused with tremendous impact at the “Milchemes
Amalek” (the war of the Amalekites). Is Amalek ready to accept the
Torah? “The Throne is not whole as long as Amalek (evil) exists.
Can this evil power accept the Torah? Pharoah said, “We are guilty.”
It was possible to convert Pharoah! But Amalek? Therefore it was a
necessity to introduce to the people someone else - a non-Jew -
Yisro! - who will be ready to accept. Intuitively, Yisro was a Jew. The
Torah purposely left out Moshe at this instant. Yisro guessed the
judicial system for a definite reason. The whole concept of “chesed”
was instituted by Yisro, the non-Jew. This teaches that despite the
unfortunate incident with Amalek, Yisro ahd to come to dispel the
idea that an outsider cannot accept the Torah. Actually, Amalek
knew nothing about Israel. It was merely irritated by a small group
of people. This was the basic trait of Naziism. They were inspired
by murder, inspired by “R’Tzicha” (evil). Doing a good thing is a
source of inspiration; evil is also a source of inspiration. “Mitzvah
gorereth mitzvah - Avayrah gorereth avayrah.” (Good inspires good
- evil inspires evil.) This was Amalek, inspired by doing evil. So,
how can they be inspired by Torah?
We have to teach by deed - not by book. If a Jew is engaged in
proper activity, he enjoys te respect of the world and this is the
concept of “Kiddush Hashem” (Sanctifying the Holy Name) - and
prohibition of “Chilul Hashem” (profaning the Holy Name). Why is
“Kiddush Hashem” so great and “Chilul Hashem” so bad? If our
ethical deeds are good, they bring others closer. Otherwise, it
teaches others to do evil. You won’t be able to be “Mamleches
Kohanim” (a priestly nation) unless you are members of “Goy
Kodosh” (a holy nation).
Thus, Torah introduced Yisro! If there is one Yisro, there can be
many Yisros, the antithesis of Amalek. Mankind will be converted to
the Al-mighty. Will mankind ever be ready? Yes! Yisro confirmed it!
Israel, in order to implement th message of Sinai must be on one
hand the teacher and on the other hand the warrior. Are the two
missions compatible? Yes! The idea that, “Yehodus” is absolute

88
pacifism is wrong. Yes, we are for pacifism but not when we are
threatened. Therefore, we have parsha Amalek befroe “Matan
Torah”. Even though “Asseres Hdibros” (commandments) has the
injunction “Lo Sirtzoch” -- do not kill -- on the other hand, we often
have to fight Amalek (evil). But there are people like Yisro! Why did
Moshe send Yisro to proselytize other peoples? Because through a
man like Yisro, the whole Torah assumes cosmic proportions. Even
though Moshe would have known of the judicial system by word of
the “Hashgocha” still it was Yisro who introduced it to make known
that it will be possible by all - non-Jews alike - to accept the word of
the Torah at the appointed time.

Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik Saturday evening,

February 24, 1979 “Yisro”

Last week, we discussed the link between Yisro’s assignment with

“Matan Torah”. Tonight, I would like to continue in this vein by
calling attention to the comments of Rashi and Rambam. Yisro
basically asks Moshe two questions (chapter 18, line 14). A) “What
is this thing that you do unto the people? It is obvious that although
Yisro embraced Judaism, he didn’t fully comprehend the Jewish way.
“People come in droves to you from morning till night! What do you
do? What is your function? What do you accomplish?” He couldn’t
understand it.
B) “Why don’t you distribute and delegate power? Why don’t you
organize and delegate a hierarchy of pwer?” Yisro couldn’t
understand that a Rav has to do it. Moshe gave one answer to their
two questions. “Vayomer Moshe L’Chosno” (And Moshe answered
his father-in-law) “Because they come to me to inquire of G-d.
When they have a problem they come to me and I judge between
one man and his neighbor and I make known the statutes of G-d
and His Law.” He told him what a Rav is supposed to do amongst
his people. As to the second question, apparently the answer is not
here. Where can it be found? There is one slight distinction. He
didn’t quite implement Yisro’s program. Yisro indicated that Moshe
should handle only the important cases, but I’ll return to it and show
why Moshe did no implement all Yisro advised.
What is Moshe’s first task? “They come to me to inquire of G-d!”
Onkelos in targum declares, “They come to me to inquire knowledge
of G-d.” Thus, the first task of the Rab is to teach. It is the best
task! It is the best as far as effectiveness is concerned and the best
regard of heartaches. (When I first came to Boston I became
involved in Jewish politics and quickly discerned that one can sink
spiritually to become involved in political problems. One is drawn
away from Torah, forgets Torah and there is no reward of L’Olam
Habah for political activity.)

89
The first task of the Rav is to study (without studying he obviously
cannot teach) and to learn. The task of the King of Israel was to
study and to teach. It was not to exercise political power. It was
the same task as the Kohanim and the Leviim, homely teaching.
The Prophet Moshe had the same power as a king -- to teach. This
is Onkelo’s interpretation and Rashi sanctions it. The Rav asks
enlightenment from “Pi Hagvorah” (Alm-ghty).
Rambam’s interpretation is a little different. Rambam says, “Moshe
explained that the people come to me for many reasons. “Mispalel
Al Chalayhem”. I should pray to Hashem for the sick.” In Hebrew,
this praying is “Lidrosh Hashem”. It is employed in Sedra Toldos.
Rivka went “LiDrosh Hashem” -- to pray. Shlomo Hamelech defines
“tefila” under the varied terms “sickness, exile, many crises with
which man is confronted. This is what Rambam says Moshe
answered, “Bikur Cholim” (visiting the sick). Many times the only
recourse is to pray to G-d.
“Bikur Cholim” has three distinct aspects. A) ‘Tefilah’. In Tehilim we
have the “posek” - “G-d will nurse me!” The first thing which the
sick person wants to achieve is “help”. A “talmud” of Rabbi Akivah
had a severe infectious disease and all refused to come close to
ehlp him, except Rabbi Akivah himself. The Rabbi nursed the sick
person and brought him to health so that the person proclaimed
taht his life was spared only through Akivah’s work.
B) Allay the feeling of loneliness. There is no lonelier person than
the sick man and this has nothing to do with his family. Sickness
generates loneliness. It is the job of the one who visits to show
interest. The feeling of loneliness is, “I am not needed anymore.”
Thus he is told by the “M’vaker Chole” (the visitor), “How much he
is needed.”
C) The sick person desires that the visitor shall pray for him. “He
shares in his distress, in his misery.” Chazal says, “One should take
sick in an imaginary manner and to understand a person’s
suffering.” If you help the person suffer by suffering with him, one
is entitled to say a prayer for him. Otherwise, the “mish’barach” is
very limited in effectiveness. Thus Rashi and Onkelos stree,
“Teach”. Rambam stresses “Bikur Cholim” in all its aspects. Is there
a common denominator between Rashi and Rambam? Both are
good and semantically alright. Is it different or the same, the
teacher and the one who prays? They both must care for the
person! They must possess the ability to love the “Talmidim”
(students). A teacher cannot fool the “Talmud”. The “Talmud” will
discover the weakness of the teacher very quickly. If the “Talmud”
feels the teacher loves him there are no limits to the
accomplishments. Otherwise, the greatest teacher will accomplish
zero. The same is the one who prays, “I must suffer and co-suffer.”
Thus Moshe had both roles, the great teacher and the greatest one

90
to ask for salvation. That he was a great teacher we know for we
call him, “Moshe Rabeynu”. How do we know that he loved the
people?
“V’hispalalti” (and I prayed for you) - He was ready to sacrifice
himself for his people. He possessed both qualities - to pray and to
teach. He had a supernatural passion for his people. Chazal says
that Moshe not only prayed at the time of the golden calf for the
forgiveness of the people but he “took hold of G-d’s garment” so as
to speak. “Take leave of me,” said the Al-mighty to Moshe. Thus
this became the day of Yom Kippur, the day of forgiveness and of
love. It all evolves about “Ahavas Yisroel” - love of Israel.
A) The next function which Moshe felt he should discharge was the
implementation of justice! He was a judge and it was his function to
perform. It is interesting that when Rambam discusses the function
of a king, the first function of the “Melech” is study. The real
mitzvah of study is first learn and then pass on the knowledge. Of
course, if you don’t study you cannot pass it on. This is no mitzvah
of plain study! Instead, it is “study and pass it on”.
The next is “fill the world with righteousness and twist the arm of
the “Chatoyim” - the sinners. Moshe was the greatest of all kings.
If there is conflict and controversy, they come to me and I judge
between one and another.
B) Next according to Rambam is teaching. According to Rashi, you
start with teaching and go to justice. According to Rambam, it’s
prayer, justice, and Talmud Torah. It seems to be a duplication and
would appear to be redundant.
Many mitzvoth were given to Moshe with which he came and
enlightened the people. If was not their request but he was the
“Sheliach Hashem” and he had to pass it on to them. (On some
mitzvoth he had to make inquiry; it wasn’t told to him. In this
category we have “Pesach Sheni” and the daughters of Zelophchod
(regarding inheritance). He had to inquire himself. Then there are
some which the Torah doesn’t even mention and have to be evolved
from the scripture. Even now in Talmud Torah there are different
aspects. I satisfy my own curiosity on my own problem -- searching
in depth, analyzing for the answer. Now we do not have the
privilege of “Going to Hashem”. Thus the peple are curious I have
students who distinguish themselves by curiosity. There is another
part of Talmud Torah - to know the known, to find out for myself that
which is already known. Thus we have A) to be inquisitive; B) to
know that which is known -- available.
Interesting is a laughable thing. In our own history since antiquity,
since Abraham, Jewish people have developed three-fold leadership:
The “Rav or Dayan” (rabbi or judge) - the “Rosh Yeshivah” (Rambam
calls Moshe, Rosh Yeshivah) - the “Chassidiser Rebbe” - the Bal
Shem Tov. If you define the task of the three, why is the Rav or

91
Dayan necessary? His job is to resolve “Din Torah” (litigation of the
Torah). I remember in Europe when people didn’t go to court.
There were no lawyers and they weren’t missed. If two people
quarreled or had a legal problem, they were brought to the Rav, a
fair, honest, sympathetic judge. The Rav may not have been
worldly but was extremely honest. There is a story which transpired
in Brisk involving my grandfather which illustrates the honesty and
impartiality. There was a man who gave a great deal of money to
Reb Chaim for charitable purposes. Reb Chaim would not even
count the money but place it in his pocket and embrace the
philanthropist. It happened that this person died and on the very
same day a poor woman, the wife of a shoemaker died. The
Halacha is that the Tahara for a woman must take precedence.
However, due to the respect which the philanthropist enjoyed, the
officials went to his house to atttend to his body first. Reb Chaim
went to the house of his dear friend and forced them to stop the
Tahara until they had completed it for the woman, despite knowing
the feelings of his family. This illustrates the justice of the Rav. In
my own father’s case, he would spend the entire day on the
judgment of one case.
Another illustration! There was a man who had a maidservant and
she owned an expensive bracelet. Once on an occasion the wife of
the master asked the maid if she could borrow the bracelet for an
affair. Later, when the mistress came home (before she could
return it) the bracelet was gone, stolen. So ordinarily, the man
would have to pay the assessed amount of the jewelry. However,
the law of Torah is that the employer is relieved of duty to the
employee. This is a “Chok” (ordinance) of Torah and we cannot
understand it. However, the parties came before the Rav and he
asked both to touch the handkerchief, a legal gesture which now
allows the Rav to make any decision as he deems correct. Once you
touch the kerchief you are at the legal mercy of the Rav and the
man refused - demanding strict “Din Torah” (literal interpretation).
However, the Rav coerced him to touch and the decision was 90%
for the maid, 10% for the master. Considering the litigant parties, it
took great courage for the Rav to do this.
There was a time in Czarist history where young Jewish children
were actually conscripted into the Russian army for 25 years
service. In effect the were kidnapped, sent far away and converted
to Christianity. The rich bought their way out, the poor couldn’t
afford to. But with their strict sense of justice many a rabbi fought
heroically with the rich over the issue, thereby often losing his job.
The job of the Rosh Yeshivah was simply to talk Torah. But there
was no one to pray, to talk for the poor. This institution was begun
by the Chassisher Rebbe. The Rebbe tood those who became sick
and prayed for them. So we have the Dayan (justice), Rosh

92
Yeshivah (teacher), and Rebbe (the person who prays). This is the
three-fold mission which Moshe described to Yisro. The son of Rabbi
Yochanan Ben Zakai became very sick and he asked Rabbi Chanina
Ben Dosa to pray for him. Rabbi Yochanan’s wife asked him, “Why
ask him? Aren’t you surely as great or greater?” He answered, “I
am the prime minister before G-d. Rabbi Chanina is the butler. A
prime minister needs an invitation to go before a king. A butler can
go in and out at will!” This was Moshe’s explanation to Yisro.
“Zdakah is mishpat.” (I settled mishpat among them.) Now, the
second question: Why didn’t Moshe institute the judicial system? Of
course, it did occur to Moshe, however, he felt it was wrong. Why
was it necessary for Yisro to introduce such a simple plan? I believe
that Moshe had a different approach to the heirarchy of justice. It
rests on the assumption that a big claim needs special attention. In
other words, a small amount in litigation needs smaller attention; a
higher amount need greater attention. This is what Yisro
implicated. “A million dollars needs a greater court!” This halacha
does not exist All requirements of jsutice -- large amount of money
is applicable to a small amount. Corruption of a million dollars is
the same as corruption of ten dollars. In Jewish law, the amount
plays no role. It is not the amount, it can be insignificant.
According to Yisro, the assignment was not to be brought to Moshe
unless it involved a lot. It is not the amount, it is the complexity.
Moshe’s reply is, “This cannot be answered. This must be
determined by Moshe. If according to Yisro it is the amount, he is
right. Small litigation to small judges, large amounts to Moshe. But
if it is the complexity, the substance, then the clerk cannot assign
the court. It must be only Moshe. Therefore, all cases must first be
brought to Moshe for disposition. Also, once you have already
brought it to him for disposition, he’ll settle it also.
To determine what is complex you must be a great scholar. I say
that often I am presented with cases which the party thinks is minor
and apologize even for calling. In reality it is so complex that in
olden times it would have involved Sanhedrin a long time. On the
other hand, often what a party thinks is complex can be answered in
minutes.
Basically, it remained as Moshe felt. But “Yahadus” (providence)
feared that one man should sin and say, “Guilty - not guilty!”, even
if that one person were Moshe. If so it would be paradoxical. No
man is worthy to hold Damocles sword over another man’s head.
Man is weak. Man is frail. To say that man has no place in the world
to judge is to turn the world into a state of anarchy. Thus, when
Moshe came with Yisro’s plan, G-d answered, “You are right!” But it
is a concession to human nature which cannot institute perfect
justice. Therfore, you must accept his advice. This is a concession

93
which Torah made to human beings knowing his frailities and
weaknesses.
Are we superior to the animal so that we are worthy to slay it and
eat its meat. Actually not! But is a concession of G-d to man.
Therefore, Yisro’s plan, a concession to man was partly accepted.

Lecture delivered by Rabbi Soloveitchik on Saturday night,

March 3, 1979
“Parsha Terumah” …
Reading today’s sedra, I found an answer to a problem long
bothersome. When G-d met Moshe for the first time and charged
him with the mission to Mitzraim, “Go tke them out of Egypt.” He
didn’t even tell him how to do it. One detail, however, He did tell
Moshe to relay to the people. “When you leave you will not leave
empty. The women will borrow beautiful clothing from their
neighbors and put them on their children. Why is this necessary to
tell them right away? He gave Moshe no details of the plagues,
“Dom”, “Tzfadaya”, but when you leave, you will leave loaded.
Then later again, “You will take gold, silver, etc.” A third time, “The
people listened and borrowed clothing, etc.” Why is this so
important before Matan Torah to be told three times? I believe the
posek, “The people found favor in the eyes of the Egyptians,” has
great importance. First, there is the procrastination on the part of
Pharaoh, his lying -- the entire story -- what impression do you get?
What did G-d want? G-d could have taken them out of Egypt in one
hour! But G-d wanted that Pharoah should liberate them! Of
course, some times you must stimulate Pharoah! But He wanted
that Pharoah should send them -- that the Jews shouldn’t liberate
themselves. Also, G-d shouldn’t liberate them immediately.
There is a law concerning “Eved Ivri” (the Jewish slave). “Do not
send him away empty handed. Why is this necessary to send the
“Eved” away laden with gifts? Because basically you give gifts to
one who is your equal. Heads of state give presents to the White
House because it is an expression of being satisfied, mutual respect,
sense of equality. G-d wanted Pharoah not merely to liberate the
Jews but to liberate them because he felt they were his equal. The
“Shaloh” is not borrowing. It is merely a request. At the beginning,
Moshe was not respected. “N’rpim Atem, N’rpin” (Pharoah said to
Moshe and Aaron - you are lazy). At the end, he was highly
respected. Now the people were eager to give gifts. At least, for a
while Pharoah recognized them as equals, to leave as free men --
equal to the Egyptians.
There is another answer. A slave has no property. Whatever he has
passes on to the master. In Egypt, they had absolutely nothing - not
utensils or anything. Clothes tell the plight of the people. In Egypt,
while they wore rags, the Egyptians wore the finest silks, linens and

94
raiments. Suddenly, they were liberated with so much beautiful
clothing and wealth. They suddenly could put on the same clothes
as their mistresses. So, they could become greedy. However, at
once there is a new request, “Vayikchu Li Terumah” -- take to me an
offering. What were they asked for? The very same things which
they just got. He let them fondle it for a while and then asked them
to give it. But the way it was taken from them had a tremendous
impact!

peasch.01 Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT"L on Erev Pesach

Shechal B'Shabbos

(Shiur date: 3/19/74. Note that this Shiur has 3 sections: Erev Pesach
Shechal Bshabbos, a discussion on egg matzo and drush)

The Mishna (Pesachim 49a) quotes a 3 way Machlokes Ta'naim

regarding how to deal with Chametz (leavened items) when Erev
Pesach coincides with Shabbos. Rabbi Meir says 'Mva'arin Es Hakol
Lifnay Hashabos', we eradicate all Chametz on Friday, Erev Shabbos.
The Rabbis say the final Bi'ur, eradication, takes place `B'Zmano', in
its appropriate time, on Shabbos. Rabbi Elazar Ben Tzadok
distinguishes between Chulin, food permissible to all, and Terumah,
which is restricted to Kohanim. Bi'ur for the former may take place on
Shabbos, while Bi'ur for the latter must take place on Friday.

Bi'ur Chametz is a fulfillment of the Mitzvas Tashbisu. The Mitzvas Bi'ur

commences on the night of Erev Pesach. We perform Bdikas Chametz
(a "search and destroy mission" on Chametz), and recite a blessing of
Al Bi'ur Chametz (not Al Bdikas Chametz). The culmination of this
activity is the final destruction of the Chametz (actual Bi'ur) during the
day of Erev Pesach. The Torah obligation is to complete the Bi'ur by
the sixth hour (noon, based on a 12 hour day of 60 minutes, Shaos
Z'maiyos, starting from 6 AM). The Rabbis added an extra restriction
to complete the Bi'ur by the end of the fourth hour (continuing with
the above example, 10 AM). When the Mishna says that we must be
M'vaer before Shabbos, the Rabbis were telling us that the Rabbinic
obligation of Tashbisu begins Erev Shabbos. (Note that this is strictly a
Rabbinic issue, as from the Torah requirement, Friday is still the
thirteenth of Nissan, and there is no Torah restriction on Chametz on
the thirteenth.)

Our custom of Bi'ur Chametz by the end of the fourth hour on Friday
the thirteenth, is not mentioned in the Mishna. The discussion there
simply says that according to Rabbi Meir it must be eradicated before
Shabbos. Bdikas Chametz is done on the night of the thirteenth. But
the final Bi'ur can take place anytime prior to Shabbos. Again this is a

95
strictly Rabbinic issue of Tashbisu, since the fourteenth is Shabbos,
and Bi'ur is forbidden on Shabbos, there can be no fulfillment of
Tashbisu in such a year. So according to Rabbi Meir the Mitzvas
Tashbisu migrates from the fourteenth to the thirteenth of Nissan.

The Chachamim say that Tashbisu does not migrate. Bdikah can
migrate to the night of the thirteenth, because there is a restriction of
searching with a candle on Shabbos, but the rest remains in its right
time. [There is a Machlokes between Chachamim and Rabbi Yehuda
(Mishna Psachim 21a) as to how to fulfill the act of Tashbisu. According
the Chachamim, Hashbasaso B'chal Davar, the Chametz may be
eradicated by any means possible. According to Rabbi Yehuda it must
be consumed through burning. Some explain that even Rabbi Yehuda's
requirement to consume the Chametz through fire is relaxed in cases
where it is impossible to fulfill. For example if he could not find wood
for a fire, he can eradicate it through other means. The fullest Kiyum
Hamitzvah according to Rabbi Yehuda is via burning. However when
he can't burn it for whatever reason, there is still a Mitzvah to
eradicate it B'chal Davar, through any means possible. So when Erev
Pesach is Shabbos, and it is impossible to burn the Chametz, he can
accomplish Bi'ur (even possibly according to Rabbi Yehuda) on
Shabbos through other forms of Bi'ur.] According to the Chachamim
the Mitzvas Tashbisu on Shabbos Erev Pesach ends the same time as
on Erev Pesach of a regular year. One accomplishes Bi'ur through
alternate means that are permissible on Shabbos, for example by
crumbling it and casting it to the wind to disperse.

The Machlokes between Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim is when does
the Mitzvas Tashbisu apply when Erev Pesach is Shabbos. Rabbi Meir
says it applies 24 hours earlier than normal and the Chachamim say
the Mitzvas Tashbisu remains in its appropriate time, on Shabbos.
According to the Chachamim, if one eradicates the Chametz on the
thirteenth, he has not fulfilled the Mitzvas Tashbisu.
Rashi explains that according to Rabbi Meir one sets aside what he
needs to consume on Shabbos and is M'vaer everything else that he is
destined to be M'vaer on Friday. Rashi is based on the earlier Gemara
(13a): "We learned in a Braysa, if the fourteenth [of Nissan] falls on a
Shabbos, we eradicate everything before Shabbos, and we burn
Terumah that is definitely unclean (Tomay), possibly unclean and pure
(Tahor) and we set aside from the clean food for 2 meals in order that
we may eat it till the fourth hour. This is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer
the son of Yehuda of Bartuta, in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua".
Here we find something that is contrary to the normal concept of Bi'ur
Chametz. Bi'ur Chametz is

96
the fulfillment of the Mitzvas Tashbisu. The very moment that Bi'ur
applies, the Chametz becomes prohibited because of the obligation of
Tashbisu.
Chametz after Chatzos according to the Rambam (Chametz U'Matzo
1:8) is forbidden by a direct prohibition (Lav) of Lo Tochlu Alav
Chametz. According to Rabbi Yehuda, this prohibition applies during
the time of Shechitas HaPesach. But the majority of Rishonim disagree
with the Rambam. So from where do they derive the prohibition of
Chametz on Erev Pesach? Tosfos (Pesachim 28b) says that Tashbisu on
Erev Pesach is not just Bi'ur Chametz, but it also prohibits one from
eating Chametz after 6 hours. How can there be Bi'ur Chametz if it is
still permissible to eat it? In all cases where we require Bi'ur, Srayfa,
the item has a definite prohibition, for example Klaay Hakerem,
Chametz on Pesach etc. Nowhere else does the Torah require Bi'ur on
something that has not yet attained prohibited status. Yet the Gemara
on (Psachim 13a) says that we must eradicate everything on the
thirteenth based on a Rabbinic application of Tashbisu that applies to
Bi'ur but not to the Issur Achila. Mitzvas Bi'ur on Erev Pesach is based
on Tashbisu. Also, if I leave the Chametz past 6 hours I violate the
Issur A'say of Tashbisu. Tashbisu is both a Kiyum A'say of Tashbisu of
Chametz and also an Issur A'say. I can fulfill a Mitzvas Tashbisu
Byadayim. And if I leave it past 6 hours on the thirteenth, I violate an
Issur A'say of Bi'ur according to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar Ish
Bartuta. So there is a fascinating Halacha here that Mitzvas Tashbisu is
split, it applies to the Kiyum A'say but not the Issur A'say, as
evidenced by the fact that according to both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi
Elazar Ish Bartuta we retain 2 meals worth of Chametz till the next
day. B'achila it only becomes prohibited on Shabbos but the Mitzvas
Bi'ur Bgufo Shel Chayfetz, the Mitzvas Tashbisu applies a day earlier.
Why does Rabbi Meir disagree with the Chachamim? The Baal Hamaor
says that Rabbi Meir agrees with Rabbi Yehuda, that since he can't do
the Bi'ur on Shabbos he does it a day earlier. (The Rav noted the
following difficulty according to the Baal Hamaor, that even (according
to some) if Rabbi Yehuda agrees that if it's impossible to accomplish
Bi'ur via burning, he may do it through any other possible means, on
Shabbos. So if Rabbi Meir's opinion is that it must be done on Friday,
he would disagree with Rabbi Yehuda. Be that as it may, the Rav
continued to explain the Baal Hamaor.)
The Rambam holds like Rabbi Meir, that we eradicate all Chametz
before Shabbos and he also holds that Hashbasaso Bchal Davar, not
like Rabbi Yehuda. According to the Rambam there is a specific
Halacha, unrelated to Rabbi Yehuda, that Bi'ur Chametz in any form is
prohibited on Shabbos. Such a Halacha is found in Rashi in Baytza,
that in general Terumah Tmaya does not require specifically Srayfa,
but he can feed it to his dog as Hashbasaso Bchal Davar. The Gemara
in Shabbos says that one may be M'vaer Terumah Tmaya in such a

97
way based on She'Lachem (Shabbos 25a). Why can't he do so on Yom
Tov? Rashi explains that there is a prohibition against any type of Bi'ur
on Shabbos, not only via fire. Tosfos quotes an opinion of Rashi
(Baytza 27b, D'H V'Al HaChalah Shenitmays). Since the Torah forbade
burning Terumah Tmaya on Yom Tov, it also forbade giving it to the
dog of a Kohen, because this would constitute an act of Bi'ur, and the
Torah elevated such Bi'ur to make it similar to Srayfa which is
forbidden on Yom Tov (and, the Rav added, if it is forbidden on Yom
Tov, it is definitely forbidden on Shabbos!). This Rashi is difficult to
understand, but we see that in his opinion anything that requires Bi'ur,
Klaay Hakerem, Chametz on Pesach, etc., the Bi'ur can't be done on
Yom Tov or Shabbos even if there is no work involved (as there is no
effort involved in feeding it to the dog) and fire is not used to destroy
it. The Rambam would appear to agree with this as he holds like Rabbi
Meir, that the Bi'ur must take place before Shabbos.
The Baal HaMaor (15b in the Rif pages) explains that Rabbi Meir based
his opinion regarding Chametz on Erev Pesach that coincides with
Shabbos on his agreement with Rabbi Yehuda's opinion that Bi'ur
Chametz requires Srayfa. And since sometimes Erev Pesach falls on
Shabbos and Srayfas Chametz is not Docheh Shabbos, and if some
Chametz remains he will be unable to burn it, therefore they declared
the sixth hour of Friday the thirteenth to be the same as the sixth hour
of Erev Pesach in a typical year. Hence they declared that one must be
M'vaer everything before Shabbos, Terumah or Chulin, as it is possible
for him, to eat Matzo on Shabbos for his meals. The Baal HaMaor
disagrees with the Rambam as to whether Rabbi Meir requires strictly
Srayfa. According to the Baal HaMaor, since Rabbi Meir requires
Srayfa, they had to take the thirteenth and treat it like Erev Pesach of
a typical year, where Chametz becomes Assur after the fourth hour
and full Isur applies after 6 hours. Once Chazal had to accelerate the
Mitzvas Tashbisu when Erev Pesach is Shabbos, they did it completely
in all regards. According to Baal HaMaor, Mechira to a non-Jew must be
completed Friday during the fifth hour. According to Baal HaMaor they
back ported the Issur Chamtez 24 hours. According to the Baal
HaMaor, Rabbi Elazar Ish Bartuta disagrees with Rabbi Meir and agrees
with Rabbi Elazar Ben Tzadok.

According to the Baal HaMaor one can eat Matzo instead for Seudas
Shabbos at night without any issue at all. And during the day, he can
eat Matzo until the time that Chametz becomes Assur Bachila (the
Baal HaMaor says till the sixth hour, but the Rav explained that he was
referring to the time of Issur Doraysa but the Baal HaMaor would be
Choshesh for the Mitzvas D'Rabanan to move up the Issur to the
fourth hour). In this way he gets around the problem of the Yerushalmi
(Perek 10), that anyone who eats Matzo on Erev Pesach is akin to Bo Al
Arusaso in his future father in laws house. He proves this from the

98
very comparison of Matzo to Arusa. The Baal HaMaor says that Matzo
becomes Arusa only when Chametz becomes Assur. The Baal HaMaor
explains the opinion of the Chachamim who say B'Zmano, as they hold
that because of the importance of Hashbasas Se'or, one can crumble
and disperse it to the wind as this does not violate the Issur Bi'ur on
Shabbos.
According to the Baal HaMaor, the basic Machlokes between Rabbi
Meir and the Chachamim is whether Bi'ur Chametz is permitted on
Shabbos. But the Baal HaMaor describes a second Machlokes between
Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim: what is Bi'ur Chametz? Does Bi'ur
Chametz requires Srayfa or is it B'Kol Davar? The Rambam also deals
with this secondary Machlokes described by the Baal HaMaor in a
different way. According to Rabbi Meir, who the Rambam paskens like,
Bi'ur Chametz is prohibited on Shabbos, no matter what form of Bi'ur
Chametz is used. This is in agreement with the opinion of Rashi noted
earlier. Another difference between Baal HaMaor and Rambam is
according to the Rambam one sets aside 2 meals worth of Chametz
and eats it on Shabbos while the Baal HaMaor says that he eats Matzo
on Shabbos. The Mitzvas Tashbisu is done in half according to
Rambam, the Bi'ur is done on Friday but Tashbisu does not result in
any Issurim. According to Baal HaMaor, Tashbisu is completely done on
Friday.
(Someone raised the following question during the Shiur: according to
the Baal HaMaor, Matzo is permitted as long as Chametz is not
forbidden, until the sixth (or fourth) hour on Shabbos. Yet the Baal
HaMaor says that the complete Mitzvas Tashbisu was accelerated by
24 hours, which presumably includes an Issur Chametz as well. So how
may one eat Matzo on Shabbos, once the prohibition of Chametz
based on Tashbisu applies? The Rav answered that Chametz
becoming Assur results in Matzo becoming Assur (as an Arusah) on
Erev Pesach. For example if Chametz became Assur on Purim Matzo
would not become Assur, only on Erev Pesach. In other words, only on
the real Erev Pesach does this linkage occur. So this Issur of eating
Matzo that is connected with the prohibition of Chametz applies only
on the real Erev Pesach, even if circumstances (i.e. the calendar)
requires that the Issur Tashbisu be accelerated one day because of
Erev Pesach coinciding with Shabbos.)

[The Rav commented that all the pamphlets concerning Erev Pesach
that coincides with Shabbos ignored the fundamental Machlokes
Rishonim of when the Mitzvas Tashbisu applies in such a year. Instead
they focused on when to eat the cake at the Taanis Bchorim! They
missed the elephant and focused on the mosquitoes!)
The Ramban in the Milchamos disagrees. He says that Matzo is Assur
all day, not just from the sixth hour on, and he bring proofs from the
Yerushalmi. He explains the concept of Arusah as deriving from the

99
fact that Bdikas Chametz was already done the night before (on a
typical year), therefore Matzo becomes an Arusah immediately in the
morning of Erev Pesach. (The Rambam also disagrees with the Baal
HaMaor and prohibits eating of Matzo on Erev Pesach all day.)
What is the connection between Bdika and the beginning of the
prohibition of Matzo as an Arusah? The Mattir by Arusah is Nisuin as
well as Kidushin. Kidushin is an Oser, it forbids her to all other men.
Heter L'baala depends not only on Kidushin, but on Nisuin also. (From
some statements of the Rambam it would appear that this is a
D'oraysa, however there are some contradictory statement in the
Rambam that require resolution, but the bottom line is...) that the
Issur to the rest of the world does not grant a Heter for the Baal, he
requires Chupa as well.

The Yerushalmi teaches us that Matzo requires Heter, just like Nisuin is
a Mattir. The Mattir is the Mitzvah of Ba'erev Tochlu Matzos. If
someone ate Matzo on the night of Pesach and had intention not to
fulfill the Mitzvah of Matzo he violates the concept of Arusa. It is a Kal
Vchomer that if he inappropriately eats Matzo before Pesach he
violates the concept of Arusa, then how much more so should he be
considered to have violated the concept of Arusa on Pesach night
itself, if he eats Matzo inappropriately! If he eats Matzo Kmitzvasah,
then he has a Mattir. With inappropriate intent, not only does he not
fulfill the Mitzvah of Baerev Tochlu Matzos but he also "violates" the
concept that Matzo requires a Heter and he ate without such a Heter.
How can one eat Matzo during the year? The answer is that when
Chametz is permitted, Matzo is not Matzo, There is no special identity
to Matzo when there is no special prohibition for Chametz. The
moment that Chametz becomes prohibited, Matzo becomes an Arusa.
But there is no Nisuin yet, it becomes a Nesuah with the Kiyum
Hamitzva (at night). According to the Baal HaMaor, there is no
difference between eating Matzo on Erev Pesach before the time that
Chametz becomes Assur and eating Matzo on Chanukah: in neither
case is the Matzo considered an Arusah, as long as there is no Issur
Chametz in effect.

The Ramban disagrees. Even though Chametz is not yet prohibited on

Erev Pesach, however there already is a difference between Chametz
and Matzo which derives from the fact that we already did Bdikas
Chametz the night of Erev Pesach (on a typical year). We have already
created the distinction between Matzo and Chametz. After all, the
Mitzvas Bdika is to search for Chametz. Matzo does not become Assur
until Erev Pesach. The night of the Bdika is not called Erev Pesach,
Erev Pesach begins in the morning at sunrise. So at that time Matzo
becomes Assur because there is a concept of Chamtez created the
night before through Bdika. Even though Chametz may still be eaten,

100
since the Kiyum Bi'ur on the Mitzvas Tashbisu has begun, the special
characteristic of Matzo begins as well. Where the Baal HaMaor requires
a full-fledged Issur Chametz to turn Matzo into an Arusah, the Ramban
only requires the Kiyum Bi'ur of Tashbisu, and the associated Chalos
Shem Chametz.
The Rav quoted the Maaseh Rav of the Vilna Gaon, that there is a
further connection between Arusa and Matzo. Just like an Arusa
requires the 7 blessings of Nisuin to permit her to her husband, on the
night of Pesach we recite 7 blessings to permit us to eat the Matzo.
Because of the classification of Matzo as Arusa, the Gaon would not
uncover the Matzos at the various points in the Haggadah where many
have the tradition to do so, because in addition to Chupa, Kalah
without Bracha (the 7 blessing) is forbidden to her husband as if she
were a Nidah. The seven blessings are: 1) Boreh Pri Hagefen; 2)
Kiddush; 3) Shehechyanu; 4) Boray Pri Adamah; 5) Asher Gealanu; 6)
Hamotzi Lechem; 7) Al Achilas Matzo. Based on the Rav's explanation
of Arusa, we have a better understanding of this custom of the Gaon!
The Gemara says (13a) that the Halacha is like Rabbi Eliezer Ish
Bartuta. The Machlokes among the Rishonim is with whom does he
agree: Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Eliezer Bar Tzadok? The Rambam paskens
like Rabbi Meir. The Rif paskens like Rabbi Elazar Bar Tzadok. Rambam
holds that Rabbi Eliezer Ish Bartuta aggrees with Rabbi Meir, and
together they are an opinion of at least two, hence he paskens
according to them and against the Chachamim. The Rambam felt that
when Rabbi Eliezer Ish Bartuta said M'vaarin Hakol Lifnay Hashabos,
he was referring to Chulin, just like Rabbi Meir. The Rif and the Raavad
and Rosh held that Rabbi Eliezer Ish Bartuta agrees with Rabbi Eliezer
Bar Tzadok and Chulin is B'zmano on Shabbos and Terumah is before
Shabbos. Since together they form an opinion of at least two, these
Rishonim pasken according to them and against the Chachamim. The
Rif, and those that agree with him, pasken that when Erev Pesach is
Shabbos one must fulfill the Mitzvas Bi'ur on Shabbos.

Rambam (Hilchos Chametz U'Matzo 3:3) "If the fourteenth falls on

Shabbos, we search for the Chametz on the night of Erev Shabbos that
is the night of the thirteenth and we set aside from the Chametz
enough to eat until the fourth hour on the day of Shabbos. He places it
in a secure area and the rest [of the Chametz] he is M'vaer before
Shabbos. If some of the Chametz [that he set aside for Shabbos]
remains on the day of Shabbos after 4 hours, he is M'vatel [nullifies] it
and he covers it with a vessel until after the first days of Yom Tov and
then he is M'vaer it".
The Rambam agrees with Rashi that according to Rabbi Eliezer Ish
Bartuta and Rabbi Meir, there is a Mitzvas Tashbisu, yet this Mitzvas
Tashbisu does not create a prohibition against eating Chametz and he
fulfills the other part of Tashbisu, the Kiyum Hamitzvah of Bi'ur, on

101
Erev Shabbos. This is our custom, as in this regard we pasken like the
Rambam. (see Maggid Mishna.)

We take it as a given that according to Rabbi Meir Bi'ur is prohibited on

Shabbos. But it is possible that to say that Rabbi Meir holds that it is
preferable to do so before Shabbos. One might say that when Rabbi
Meir says that M'vaarin Hakol Lifnay Hashabos means that the Mitzvas
Tashbisu begins on Friday, before Shabbos. However Rabbi Meir does
not say that one MUST be M'vaer before Shabbos, rather one MAY be
M'vaer before Shabbos. If he does not, then he must be M'vaer on
Shabbos. (According to the Baal HaMaor, one could not use this
reasoning, as he holds that Rabbi Meir agrees with Rabbi Yehuda that
Bi'ur Chametz requires burning, which must be done before Shabbos.)

Does the Rambam agree with this possible interpretation of Rabbi

Meir, that M'vaarin Lifnay Hashabos might mean that one could do it
on Shabbos as well? The Rav explained that the Rambam removes all
doubt regarding this when he says if some Chametz remained after 4
hours on Shabbos, he must cover it and dispose of it after the first day
of Yom Tov. Since the Rambam normally permits Bi'ur of any kind and
does not limit it to burning (like the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda) and yet
he prohibits Bi'ur of any kind on Shabbos, we see that the Rambam's
opinion is that according to Rabbi Meir there is an Issur Bi'ur, of any
kind, on Shabbos. Therefore one must be M'vaer everything before
Shabbos, except what he sets aside for eating on Shabbos itself. Since
any sort of Bi'ur is prohibited on Shabbos, he has no choice but to
cover up whatever is left till after the first day of Yom Tov. (Rambam is
the only Rishon who paskens like Rabbi Meir.)

The Rambam agrees with Rashi that Bitul protects against Bal Yayraeh
and Bal Yimatzeh. But also, in Bitul there is a Kiyum Hamitzvah of
Tashbisu. The Rambam says (2:2) "And what is the Hashbosah
required by the Torah? It is that he must be M'vatel it in his heart and
think of it as dirt and impress upon himself that he has no Chametz
whatsoever in his possession...". (Unkelos says that Bi'ur is Bitul.) Such
Hashbosah (of Bitul) can be done on Shabbos as well. But the Mitzvah
of Tashbisu of Bi'ur Bguf Hachafetz, destroying the actual Chametz
itself, can't be done on Shabbos. The advice given to crumble any
remaining Chametz on Shabbos and flush it down the toilet according
to the Rambam is forbidden. Any Chametz that remains, according to
the Rambam, must receive Bitul, then take the Chametz and place it in
the garbage. Leaving the Chametz in the garbage is not a problem,
because Bal Yayaraeh and Bal Yimatzeh is not defined by the location
of the Chametz, but by the ownership of the Chametz, in Dinay
Mamonus. Once I renounce ownership of the Chametz it can remain in

102
my garbage can. Those of the opinion that one may flush it away do
not pasken like Rabbi Meir.
The Rif, Ramban and Rosh disagree and say that Rabbi Eliezer Ish
Bartuta agrees with Rabbi Eliezer Bar Tzadok. If Bi'ur is permitted on
Shabbos why does he disagree with the Chachamim regarding
Terumah, why not be M'vaer Terumah on Shabbos as well? If Bi'ur is
prohibited on Shabbos, then why does he permit Bi'ur of Chulin on
Shabbos? Terumah has a more limited number of potential consumers,
only Kohanim. Chulin on the other hand can be given to all one's
friends and neighbors, therefore they allowed him to keep it till
Shabbos. But since there are fewer potential eaters of Terumah, he
must be M'vaer before Shabbos. Rashi says that it is impossible to
hold on to it, Lhashoso E' Efshar (49a). If he will leave the Terumah he
will have nothing to do with it, in other words he will not even be able
to be M'vaer it on Shabbos. Therefore he must be M'vaer before
Shabbos. Rashi (49a) holds that according to Rabbi Eliezer Bar Tzadok,
Bi'ur is prohibited on Shabbos.
The Rav explained Rashi that since the limited audience for Terumah
virtually guarantees that there will be some left over into Pesach, in
order that the Kohen should not be stuck with the Chametz well into
Pesach, we tell him to be M'vaer before Shabbos. From Rashi it
appears that there is an Issur Bi'ur on Shabbos. If there was no Issur
Bi'ur on Shabbos, what risk would there be to allow him to wait till
Shabbos with Terumah also? From Rashi it appears that he would be
compelled to hold on to it because he can't do Bi'ur. Chulin however
he can hold onto because he can always find sufficient people to
consume it. The probabilities are better that he will dispose of it by
inviting many guests to a party. According to Rabbi Eliezer Bar Tzadok,
with Terumah there is no choice: anything that would remain after the
fourth hour on Shabbos would have to be kept until after Yom Tov
Rishon. But with Chulin, he can rely on the greater probability of more
people; perhaps there will be nothing left to be M'vaer. But since he
can't do Bi'ur on Shabbos in either case, if Chulin remains he will have
to hold on to it till after Yom Tov Rishon and burn it then.

Rabbi Meir felt that it is impossible to consume all the Chametz before
Pesach, whether it is Chulin or Terumah. Since Bi'ur on Shabbos is
prohibited, the Mitzvas Hashbosah was moved up by a day. Rabbi
Eliezer Bar Tzadok agrees with Rabbi Meir in the case of Terumah. But
in the case of Chulin, he permits him to wait because there is a better
chance that it will be totally consumed, he has a way to help ensure
that there will be nothing left because guest may come to partake of
his Chametz. But if some Chametz remains, he must wait till after Yom
Tov Rishon to dispose of it, because Bi'ur on Shabbos is prohibited.
Therefore according to the Rambam, according to both Rabbi Meir and

103
Rabbi Eliezer Bar Tzadok, Bi'ur on Shabbos is prohibited, and that is
the way he paskens.
We can also learn another Pshat in Rabbi Eliezer Bar Tzadok; that he
holds Bi'ur on Shabbos is permitted, that he agrees with the
Chachamim as far as Bi'ur is concerned. Even if there are no guests
we can still be M'vaer the Chulin on Shabbos, by flushing or through
other means. Rashi holds that by Terumah Tmayah he can feed it to
his animal. (Note: see Rashi Psachim 13a, D'H Thoros Lo Yisrfu, which
seems to contradict the earlier explanation of Rashi's opinion that
Bi'ur of any sort, even one that requires minimal exertion, is prohibited
on Shabbos.) The Rambam disagrees and says that Terumah Tmayah
requires actual burning. Since on Shabbos it is prohibited to burn
Terumah Tmayah, they required that all Terumah be burned before
Shabbos. But in reality Bi'ur would be permitted on Shabbos for
regular Chametz, since it does not require actual burning, but
Hashbosah Bchal Davar (only Rashi holds that he can dispose of
Terumah Tmayah in ways other than burning). To fulfill both Kiyumim
of Hashbosas Chametz and Terumah Tmayah they said to be M'vaer
before Shabbos. Therefore all Terumos are to be consumed before
Shabbos as Lo P'lug. Rabbi Eliezer Bar Tzadok holds that Bi'ur is
permitted on Shabbos for Chulin, therefore he can flush it on Shabbos.
According to the Rambam, who paskens like Rabbi Meir, it is definitely
prohibited. But according to the Rishonim who pasken according to
Rabbi Eliezer Bar Tzadok, one can do Bi'ur in this manner on Shabbos.
The Rav said that he did not destroy the remaining Chametz on
Shabbos. He would place it in the garbage. However he cautioned that
the Kol Chamira must be said with great care and Kavana. It should be
recited with both texts Livtal Vleheve Hefker Kafra D'ara (text of the
Ree) and also Livtal Vleheve Kafra D'ara (according to Rashi because if
it is Hefker there is no Tashbisu, because he has to show that Ayno
Rotzeh Bkiyumo, hence it can't be Hefker before he pronounces the
Bitul). Every year Bitul is done after the Bdikah for the Chametz that I
did not find, D'lo Chazitay. It is repeated in the morning at the Srayfa
as a Minhag, but this Minhag is not mentioned in the Gemara. But
when Erev Pesach is Shabbos, the whole protection is received from
the Bitul recited on the morning of Erev Pesach, Shabbos, and it must
be a serious declaration. The Bitul pronouncement must include
Chametz that I have seen and that I have to keep till after Yom Tov
(Dchazitay)[because I am prohibited from disposing of it] as well as
Chametz that I have not seen (U'Dlo Chazitay).
Regarding the use of egg matzos: the Rav said that since Rabbi Eliezer
Ish Bartuta says that we leave over 2 meals worth of Chametz for
Shabbos, it is appropriate for us to do this and not use egg matzos. We
don't agree with the Baal HaMaor, therefore we do not use Matzos (of
any kind) on Erev Pesach. The Mitzvas Tashbisu creates a Kiyum of
Bi'ur on the thirteenth but not an Issur Achila, a prohibition against

104
eating the Chametz until it's rightful Zman Issur, prohibited time. This
was the Minhag of the Rav and his parents and Gedolei Yisrael.
If one holds like the Baal HaMaor that the Issur Chametz begins Friday
after 4 hours, he would have to eat Matzo from Friday on. The problem
with Egg Matzo is as follows. The Gemara says that Matzo that was
kneaded with fruit juice is not called Matzo. Rashi and the Raavad said
that one is not punished with Kares, however the Issur of Chametz
Nuksha still applies, even though it's not Chametz Gamur. (Raavad 5:2
Chametz U'Matzo) The Rambam
considers Matzo kneaded with fruit juices as perfectly acceptable
Matzo, as long as there is no water introduced to the batter. All
Rishonim except for Rashi and the Raavad agree. Rabbeinu Tam is
quoted to have eaten egg matzos on Erev Pesach (Tosfos Pesachim
35b, D'H U'May Payros) because in his opinion, fruit juice is not even a
leavening agent, so egg matzos are permitted on Pesach as well as
Erev Pesach. According to Rashi and the Raavad one may not eat egg
matzos on Pesach because it is Chametz Nuksha. What about Erev
Pesach? The Rama says one should not eat egg matzos even Erev
Pesach, unless there are mitigating health reasons. For example if one
is Mitztaer, uncomfortable eating regular Matzo, he may eat egg
matzos. So in the core Halacha, the Rama paskens against Rashi, that
egg matzos really are permissible (if egg matzos would be Assur M'Ikar
D'Dina, if egg matzos were really prohibited, them the elderly and ill
would not be allowed to eat them either). The Noda B'Yehuda permits
egg matzos on Erev Pesach because on Erev Pesach Chametz Gamur
alone is prohibited, not Chametz Nuksha. This depends on the
Machlokes
Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam if Chametz Nuksha is included in Bal Yayraeh
and Bal Yimatzeh and if the Mitzvas Tashbisu applies to it. According to
Rashi there is a Mitzvas Tashbisu on Chametz Nuksha, therefore there
is an Issur Achila. According Rabbeinu Tam, Mitzvas Tashbisu does not
apply to Chametz Nuksha, therefore there is no Issur Achila. Many
Achronim permit egg matzos on Erev Pesach. Minhag Yisrael is not to
eat egg matzos.
There is an anomaly, according to the Rambam, regarding egg matzo
that it is permissible to use on Pesach but not Erev Pesach. The
Rambam excludes Matzo that was kneaded with the 4 liquids of wine,
oil, milk and honey. Matzo baked with all other fruit juices are perfectly
acceptable for fulfilling the Mitzvah of Achilas Matzo on Pesach.
Therefore what we call egg matzos, would be acceptable for Matzo
Shel Mitzvah on Pesach night and therefore forbidden on Erev Pesach.
The Rav emphasized that when one reads in the modern Pesach books
and literature that egg matzo is permitted on Erev Pesach, that is
according to the other Rishonim, not the Rambam.
According to the Gaon if one eats egg matzos, one must eat a lot in
order to be Koveah Seuda. Other Achronim (with the exception of the

105
Gaon) require a smaller amount, based on the requirements of Eruv
Techumin, between 3-4 eggs. (The Rav said that the students of
Yeshiva Rambam experimented and discovered that 3-4 eggs are
equal in volume to 2.5
matzos.) If people eat a significant amount of cake they are required
to wash and make a Bracha of Hamotzi, not Borei Minay Mzonos.
However once there is Kvias Seuda as defined by the amount eaten,
once must wash and say Bircas Hamazon. Kvias Seuda is equivalent to
between 3-4 eggs, or a few pieces of cake. Those that want to eat egg
matzos on Erev Pesach for Lechem Mishna must eat a shiur. One who
eats a sufficient amount of any form of Pas Haba B'kisnin that creates
Kvias Seuda turns the Pas into Lechem and requires washing, Hamotzi
and Bircas Hamazon. Sponge cake is excluded, it is not considered
Lechem, however pies are considered Lechem if one eats a sufficient
amount. Anything that is Blilaso Avah, if it is kneaded into a thick
texture it is considered Pas and if a sufficient amount is eaten then
one must treat it like bread.Regarding the Halacha that Bi'Ur Chametz
on Shabbos is forbidden, the Rav noted an Agadadic/Kabbalistic
reason that the Bi'ur should not be done on Shabbos. It is a given that
there is evil on this world. The Torah says in Breishis that Hashem
created light and Hashem saw that the light was good, which implies
that the darkness is bad, essentially the creation of good and evil. At
the time of creation, Hashem chose not to eradicate darkness from the
world. Chazal say that Hashem hid the original light created at Maasei
Breishis till the days of Moshiach, when complete and total light,
without darkness, will reign. The Gemara (Makos 13a, Sukka 53a,
Yerushalmi Sanhedrin Perek 10) says that when David dug the
foundations for the Beis Hamikdash, he dug deep enough to find a
piece of pottery, Atzitz, that was there according to some from the
time of creation and according to others from the time of Maamad Har
Sinai. David wanted to take it. The Atzitz warned David not to remove
it, because it has been there all these years preventing the abyss
beneath it from rising up and flooding the world. David took it anyway
and when the waters threatened to engulf the world, Achitofel advised
him to write the name of Hashem on a stone and throw it into the
abyss, and the stone settled in the opening and the world was saved.
We see from here that Hashem left behind within His creation certain
abysses into which man may fall. Man's wickedness can break open
the protective coverings from these dangerous places and the
resulting evil can consume the entire world.
Hashem created good and evil, He separated between good and evil
but did not eradicate evil from the world, even though it says that
Hashem saw all that He did and it was very good, Tov M'od. When the
torah tells us that Hashem rested on the seventh day it is referring to
Mizmor Shir Lyom Hashabos, to Yom Shekulo Shabbos Umenucha
Lchayei Haolam Habo. The Rav said in the name of his father, that

106
when the Levites would sing the daily Hymn on Shabbos they would
say L'Yom Shekulo Shabbos Umenucha Lchayei Haolam Habo. The true
Shabbos is to come in the eschatological age, when evil will be
eradicated and U'macha Hashem Dimah M'Al Kal Panim.
How will evil disappear? Judaism suggests two approaches. The first is
a war against evil, to
simply eradicate and destroy it. This is symbolized by Milchama
L'Hashem B'Amalek M'Dor Dor, there is an ongoing battle against the
evil forces in the world and in nature, as represented by Amalek. When
the Torah commands us to heal the sick, V'Rapo Y'Rapeh, it is telling
us that illness is a bad thing and man should try his utmost to
eradicate it from the world. According to Kabbalah, Amalek represents
the generations of Tohu V'Vohu, of dark
evil in the world. We find many times that we are commanded to
eradicate the evil from among us, U'Bearta Hara M'Kirbecha, the Torah
was very strict with murderers an sinners. The Torah warns us against
becoming pacifists when dealing with those that commit grave sins
(e.g. murderers) and commands us not to look the other way. On the
other hand the Torah tells us that the evil can be overwhelmed by
good and transformed into good through the power of Teshuva,
repentance. No matter how deeply entrenched in sin a Jew may be, he
has the possibility of doing Teshuva to correct the evil within him and
elevate himself back to a state of complete good.
There are people that have become so infected by evil that it is no
longer possible to separate them from the evil. The Rambam and the
Ramban say that it is possible for man to sink to such a level that he
loses his free will, Bchira Chofshis, to change his ways and return to
Hashem. At that point he personifies evil, his personality and the evil
within it are indistinguishable. He becomes an Amalek. If he has not
yet reached that stage, the evil can be elevated and Teshuva is
possible.

Shabbos and Pesach represent these two approaches to the

eradication of evil. Pesach is Hashbosas Hara, an active campaign to
eradicate evil. The Rambam in the well known first letter (of the Igeres
HaRambam) says that each man has his own internal Paroh that he
needs to eradicate. Every man can remove his internal Paroh. The
removal from the standpoint of Pesach manifests in a physical
immolation of the evil within. It requires great efforts. Shabbos, on the
other hand, represents Teshuva. Chazal say that when Adam realized
the great power of Teshuva, after Kayin told him that he was forgiven,
he immediately said Mizmor Shir Lyom Hashabbos. What is the
connection between Kayin's judgment and Adam's reaction of saying
the psalm? It is that Shabbos represents the idea that in the
eschatological age there will be no need to eradicate evil. It will
transform into good through Teshuva, without a battle. Therefore

107
when Shabbos is Erev Pesach, there is no Bi'ur Chametz, no physical
eradication of Chametz, evil, but rather an absorption and
transformation of evil into good, as symbolized by Shabbos and
Teshuva. _____________________________________________________________
Copyright 2001, Josh Rapps and Israel Rivkin, Edison, NJ. Permission
to reprint this Shiur, with this notice, is granted. To subscribe to
this service, send email to listproc@shamash.org with the following
message:
subscribe mj-ravtorah firstname lastname.

---------------------- mj-ravtorah@shamash.org ---------------------+

Hosted by Shamash: The Jewish Network http://shamash.org
A service of Hebrew College, offering online courses and an
online MA in Jewish Studies, http://hebrewcollege.edu/online/
---------------------- mj-ravtorah@shamash.org ---------------------=
bo.01

Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT"L on Makas Bchoros

(Shiur Date: 2/8/75. Tape available from M. Nordlicht: #5218, #5219.

Please refer to this Shiur for Parshas Bo as well.)

Yetzias Mitzrayim is more than a story that happened to our people

thousands of years ago. It is still as significant and relative today as it
was those many years ago. The exodus was the preamble to receiving
the Torah at Sinai. One could say that all 613 commandments are
rooted in some way to Yetzias Mitzrayim and Kabbalas HaTorah. Often
the Torah associates Yetzias Mitzrayim with Mitzvahs, for example Ani
Hashem Elokaychem Hamotzi Eschem M'Eretz Mitzrayim. Shabbos as
explained in the Aseres Hadibros in Sefer Devarim is rooted in Yetzias
Mitzrayim. What is the guiding principle of the Mitzvahs that are
explicitly associated with Yetzias Mitzrayim? For instance we are
enjoined from acting as the Egyptians did. The Torah tells us (Vayikra
11:43-45) Al Teshaktzu Es Nafshosaychem etc.,
don't defile yourselves etc. for I am the Lord your God, and you shall
be holy for I am holy etc. For I am the Lord who has lifted you out of
the Land of Egypt, and you shall be holy for I am holy. The Torah uses
similar language (Vayikra 18:3) Ani Hashem Elokaychem K'Maasay
Eretz Mitzrayim Asher Yeshavtem Ba Lo Taasu The Torah then
commands us to follow "My laws, I am the Lord your God". This is
followed by a list of illicit sexual relationships. The general principle is
that Mitzvahs where man is warned to discipline himself and refrain
from over indulgence in corporeal desires are linked to Eretz
Mitzrayim. Judaism recognizes and accepts that man is comprised of
body and soul, intellect and desires. Yet, Judaism's approach to the
body is one of discipline. The body must be more than a tool of the

108
savage, brutish caveman. The Jew must refrain and retreat from Torah
prohibitions even though the actions promise him much pleasure.
Engaging in such acts of pleasure ultimately defile man, therefore he
must discipline his mind and subjugate his body to resist them.

Indulging in the eating of forbidden food items, Maachalos Asuros, as

described in Parshas Shemini and in forbidden sexual relationships as
described in Parshas Acharay Mos, defile man. The Rambam grouped
them both under Hilchos Kedusha. [The Rav noted that people criticize
traditional Judaism for its emphasis on these things. He told the story
of Jacob Schiff, a German Jew and potential donor, who was brought in
to YU to observe a
shiur from Rabbi Aharanovich. He inquired what he was teaching and
was told that he was teaching Yoreh Deah Hilchos Basar Vchalav.
Schiff said that he was not interested in supporting a religion of the
stomach.] It is easier for man to enter a shul and pray for an hour
with dedication and sincerity than to discipline his body. Judaism is
interested in the disciplining of one's body through the conversion of
physiological functions based on man's primitive drives into a service
of the Almighty. The Rambam (Hilchos Deos 3:3) concludes that man
should strive to serve Hashem when he eats, when he sleeps. This is
the fulfillment of the command Bchol Drachecha Daayhu, know Him in
all your ways [and activities]. Find Him not only on Yom Kippur at
Neilah. Recognize Him in your dining room, your bedroom, the
boardroom and in the rest of your personal and public life.

Another category of Mitzvahs associated with Eretz Mitzrayim is

idolatry. The highest ethical norm among the pagan religions was the
pursuit of physical pleasure. They developed a voluptuous way of life
wherein they worshipped their gods through the most immoral acts
that promised themselves much pleasure. Another group of Mitzvahs
is Ahavas Hager. Shabbos is a memorial to Yetzias Mitzrayim.
Mitzvahs that are rooted in Yetzias Mitzrayim include Lo Tateh Mishpat
Yasom Valmana (Devarim 24:18). These injunctions are principles of
justice and charity. The Torah tells us (Shmos 22:20) Vger Lo Tonu Vlo
Tilchatzenu. In summary, the principles of justice and sanctity
encompass all 613 Mitzvahs and are associated with Yetzias Mitzrayim.
Mitzvahs exhibit both characteristics.
For example, Shabbos in Devarim deals with justice, while in Shmos
the commandment to keep the Shabbos focuses on the aspect of
Kedusha. Observance of Shabbos enhances one's inner strength,
sanctity and spirituality and allows him to rise to exalted spiritual
heights. In the commandment to keep the Shabbos in Devarim we are
commanded to ensure that the servant and the poor person do not
work 7 days. This stems from the principle of justice that governs

109
human relationships, including Tzedakah (charity) and Tzedek
(righteousness). Yetzias Mitzrayim is fundamental to both.
However there is a special group of Mitzvahs that are closely
associated with and remind us of the Exodus. Two types of Mitzvahs
belong to this group. Holidays, and precepts associated with the
observance of all the festivals. Eating Matzo on Passover and sitting in
the Sukkah are the echoes and reflection of Yetzias Mitzrayim. The
exodus is not dead and irrelevant, we try to relive the events of Yetzias
Mitzrayim. These Mitzvahs are practiced annually, for a fixed period of
time. The second group includes precepts that we practice on an
ongoing basis and symbolize the exodus. Two such Mitzvahs are the
first born, Bchor, and Tefillin. How is the Mitzvah of the first born,
Bchor, symbolic of the exodus?
[The Rav pointed out that our analysis does not ask the question why,
what is the motivation behind the commandment. Motivation applies
to a human being. It is ridiculous to ask what motivated Hashem to
give certain laws. Hashem is omnipotent and the realization of His will
is the aim. In the explanatory sciences, the analysis and explanation
means to reach outfor the cause and effects. The scientific method
translates the relationships between phenomena into a mathematical
equation. Understanding the relationship means "what does it say to
me". The Ramban in discussing Shiluach Hakan (sending away the
mother bird) says that it is nonsensical to ask why Hashem ordained
this Mitzvah. But it is appropriate to ask what it says to me. What am I
supposed to take away from the Mitzvah? What can I derive from it?
Does the Mitzvah give me solace, does it depress me. How do I feel
when I carry out the commandment? These are appropriate
questions.]

Let us analyze the relation between Bchor and Yetzias Mitzrayim, in

particular the plague of the first born, Makas Bchoros. Those that
sought to portray Judaism as a blood thirsty religion, often focus on
the plague of the first born. An understanding of Makas Bchoros will
provide insight into Mitzvas Bchor. Why did Hashem single out the
Egyptian first born? In what respect were they responsible for the
enslavement and torture of the Jewish People?

There is another difficult verse relating to Makas Bchoros. But first let
us review the context that precedes it. Hashem met Moses at the
burning bush and offered him the mission of redeemer and messenger
of redemption. The Torah describes a debate Kvayachol, where
Hashem offers and Moshe counters. Moshe finally agreed. Hashem
told him that Aharon would be his spokesman and he should take the
staff with him to use when performing miracles. Moshe was given a
direct and clear message to Paroh to let the Jews go so they may
serve Hashem in the desert. Moshe reconciled himself to his mission

110
as redeemer. (see Shmos 3:18). Hashem then tells him that he should
go to Egypt without any fear of prosecution, for the people who sought
his death have died and no longer threaten him. Moshe takes the staff
and receives a final message from Hashem that reviews the whole
debate and conversation and the commandments he was given
pertaining to his looming encounter with Paroh. Hashem foretells
Moshe not to be depressed by the refusal of Paroh to listen to his
message. Eventually the resistance you meet will fade away.
Suddenly, Hashem tells Moshe you should tell Paroh that Israel is my
first born and I command you "let My son go so he may worship Me". If
you refuse I shall slay your first born. The transition to the discussion
of the first born is sudden and unexpected. Why did Hashem mention
this only after Moshe departed for Egypt and not at the burning bush?
What is the parallelism between the frame of reference in which the
statements about Bni Bchori Yisrael appears and the rest of the
preceding Parsha?

Chazal explain that the philosophy of power in ancient Egypt is

described here. The oldest child is typically the strongest. The oldest
son is capable of exercising authority over his younger siblings. Quite
often the older, more mature children simply torture and order around
their younger siblings. [The Rav observed that America is faced with
the previously unheard of phenomenon of criminal youth, where they
form gangs that terrorize children and adults as well. A child criminal
was unheard of in previous generations. The origin of this behavior is
the parental home. Later this activity develops into a conspiracy and
a criminal organization.]
Historians and sociologists are accustomed to speak about the ancient
patriarchic society. But the Rav added the concept of the patriarchic
community. Judaism is both a patriarchic and matriarchal community.
When the father teaches his children, he teaches them reverence and
respect which leads to love. The father's commands are followed not
because he threatens the children but because they accept his orders
out of love. This is the society based on Kibbud Av Vaym that Abraham
(and Sarah) established. This applies to both father and mother who
enjoy equal respect and love from the children.

There was another patriarchic society in antiquity. In that society, the

father was obeyed because he was the strongest. It was reverence
based on tyranny. The Hebrews were not only slaves to Paroh. The
weak were subjected to the brutality of every official, anyone who
wielded power in Egypt. Bchor means not only the oldest, but the
strongest as well. Anyone who exercised power was considered a
Bchor. [The Rav remarked that in his youth, he was not victimized by
the police or the government. Rather, the Jewish children were
terrorized by a big gentile bully who simply would beat up the Jewish

111
children. The Rav said he never answered the question as to why ten
Jewish boys should be afraid of one gentile boy! But he observed that
years later in YU the same mentality still applied!].

What was the mentality of the Hebrew slaves? It was fear of an

Egyptian society that subjected them to the brutality of the strong.
The whole society consisted of tyrants and slaves. The father and
older son ruled over his younger siblings. There is a hierarchy of
slavery, see recently even in communist Russia. The cohesive force
uniting society is fear. On the night of Passover the Almighty smote
not only all of the first born but all those that exercised authority and
compelled people to comply against their will. The Torah tells us that
Hashem punished the Egyptian gods. Why? Because if you punish a
nation you must also refute their philosophy, their ideology. Otherwise
that nation will return and repeat the same mistake. On the night of
Passover Hashem punished the Egyptian ideology of slavery, of
terrorizing another person.

Did the excesses of the Egyptian first born lead Judaism to simply
abandon the institution of Bchor? Are all children assigned the same
status? Or has it replaced the Egyptian institution of the first born by
elevating it to a higher level? There is no doubt that Judaism
recognizes the unique role played by the Bchor in the household.
Even though primogeniture was not considered to be a source of
power, the Torah still commands us to sanctify the first born.
We all remember the story of the transaction of the Bchorah between
Esau and Jacob. According to the text, it was clear that the acquisition
of power was not the reason why Jacob wanted the Bchorah. Jacob
was not interested in exercising authority over his brother. Kabbalah
portrays Jacob as the symbol of Rachamim, mercy and charity. Jacob
wanted to obtain the Bchorah in order that he may perform the
service of God, the Avodah. Even without relying on statements of
Chazal, it is clear that Jacob was not interested in the blessings to
obtain worldly power. He accepted the Brachos almost against his will.
Rivka commanded him to disguise himself and receive the blessings.
Jacob had no interest in worldly blessings. He knew that the blessings
of physical wealth would not satisfy him. Esau is interested in power
and violence, to be the strongest and richest. This doesn't appeal to
Jacob. Jacob knew that through the Bchorah he would inherit the
covenantal destiny. He will be the successor of Abraham and Isaac. His
purpose in attaining the blessings from Isaac was to ensure that Esau
should not be the next in line after his father. Sarah was the first to
fight for the covenantal destiny when she sent Hagar and Ishmael
away. Throughout Tanach, there is a correspondence between the
promotion of someone to greatness and the skipping over of the
oldest. Abraham was not the oldest, neither was Isaac or Jacob. Judah,

112
Joseph, Levi and Binyamin received a greater share of responsibility.
Also Moshe, the younger sibling, was greater than his older brother,
Aharon.

What is involved in Bchorah according to Judaism? God owns the world

in general and the living world in particular. The cosmos generally
consists of dead matter. No one knows if there is organic matter else
where in the universe. The universe is divided into organic and
inorganic matter. Hashem is everywhere even in the void of space.
However, His mastery is greater and more visible where there is living
matter, especially where man is found, as man is the jewel of creation.
Dietary laws impose upon us many restrictions. Judaism limits access
to the animal kingdom through a variety of laws that restrict access to
and enjoyment of animal meat. There are no restrictions on the
vegetative world, especially outside Eretz Yisrael. Man may consume
all vegetables, unless man corrupts the species though cross breeding.
In Israel there are laws of Orlah and Neteh Revai. But one can't
compare the depth and scope of laws that govern access to the
vegetative kingdom to those that govern access to the animal
kingdom. With the exception of the requirement to make a Bracha
before we enjoy them, there are no restrictions on the vegetative and
mineral worlds. The number of Halachic prohibitions is related to the
value placed on that object by Hashem. The Torah tells us that the
blood is the soul and the blood was given to atone for our sins.
Therefore we are enjoined from eating blood. Eating Chaylev is
punishable by Ka'res (Vayikra 17:10). Chaylev and blood were
prohibited because they belong exclusively to Hashem. Blood is the
center of life, there is an equation between life and blood, and
therefore the prohibitions are stronger. Blood was not released to man.
It belongs exclusively to Hashem. He is master of all life and the
entire world, particularly the living world, as He is Elokim Chayim.
There are so many precepts regarding consumption of flesh because
the Torah reluctantly released it to man in the time of Noah. Prior to
Noah, man was vegetarian.
The more precious the object is, the stronger the claim of the Almighty
to that object. Hashem claims whatever is precious to man. The claim
of Hashem is proportional to the importance man ascribes to the
object. Children, man's most precious possession, belong to Hashem
as well. Chana was the prime model of someone who recognized that
the child belongs to Hashem. She said M'Hashem Sheiltiv. It can be
interpreted as I requested him and also as I borrowed him from
Hashem. After she nursed him, she returned him to Hashem. The birth
of Isaac is also viewed in a similar manner. The concept of the Akeidah
has been attacked by many including ignorant Jews as well. But they
are all missing the upshot of the story, that the child belongs to
Hashem. The birth of every child is an important event, especially to

113
the mother. The birth of the first child is the greatest and most
cathartic experience for the mother, when she is truly prepared to be
a mother. There is an emotional, spiritual and metaphysical
relationship between mother and child.

[The Rav remarked that the clamor of the liberals to permit abortion is
abhorrent and incomprehensible. How can a mother approach a
physician and ask him to kill her child? The pretext for abortions used
to be that the girl was frightened because she would be
excommunicated by society. But where fright is not involved it is
incomprehensible and inexplicable (not that fright was a valid excuse).
The Rav considered society of today as insane. The Rav remarked
upon the insanity of the large number of abortions performed in Eretz
Yisrael while there was a call for 60,000 youths to emigrate to Israel!
How can this be reconciled? If you will kill a fetus, the time will come
when even an infant will be killed. If the rationalization for abortion is
that the depression of the mother, then what happens when the
mother will claim after the birth of the child that her mental balance
depends on the death of the baby? Perhaps her serenity will depend
on the removal of the baby a day or a week or a month after the
birth? Will that also be rationalized? Women from Orthodox homes
consult Rabbis about abortion. There is a trend of Rabbis in the USA to
march mindlessly with society on this topic, lest they be viewed as
reactionary.]
The birth of the first child, especially for the mother, borders on the
psychologically miraculous. Young women are excited when they
discover that they are pregnant for the first time. This excitement is
often absent, unfortunately, in subsequent pregnancies. Judaism
wanted to maintain the excitement of the first baby and extend it to
all children. Without a child, husband and wife are a closed
community. They care for themselves and are concerned only with
themselves. In metaphysical, Halachic terms, the bachelor is an
egocentric person. As long as his parents or siblings live he has a
chance to be involved with someone else's needs. After that, there is
no one left for him to be concerned with. Existentially the single
person is selfish. That's why Chazal say (Brachos 8a) Matza Isha Matza
Tov (one who finds a woman funds good), Kal Hasharuy B'lo Isha
Sharuy Bli Simcha
(Yalkut Shimoni Breishis Remez 22) (all that live without a wife live
without joy) etc. A single existence is incomplete. Man can become
selfish.The next stage is marriage. The existential area extends to
encompass the spouses who care for each other. It now includes
someone who I am ready to sacrifice for. Why is man admonished not
to remain alone? After all he has no restrictions and encumbrances,
there is convenience in being single. Yet

114
Hashem says Lo Tov Heyos Adam Lvado. The Torah is talking
existentially. When man thinks only of himself and is concerned only
with himself that is not good. So Hashem made Ezer Knegdo. But
being does not culminate in marriage. Rashi (Breishis 2:24) interprets
in the verse Al Kayn Yaazov Ish Es Aviv Ves Imo Vdavak Bishto Vhayu
Lbasar Echad as referring to the child. With the birth of the first child,
the wife begins to shift her focus from the husband towards the child.
The husband cares for both wife and child. The area of concern now
has expanded again. The couple alone is a closed community. With the
arrival of the child they become part of an open community.

[The Halacha says (having children depends on physiological factors

and many can't have children.) that man can have children at any
time by being concerned with the education of children. The childless
couple that cares for the education or well being of another's child or
an adopted child expand their area of being very wide as well. Many
times such adoptive parents are superior to couples blessed with
natural children. The Halacha says that a man without children can't
be appointed as a judge in capital cases because he lacks sympathy
and compassion. Also an old man can't be a judge because he has an
innate cruel streak because his life is behind him. [The Rav remarked
that he observed this in himself as well.] An older person never knows
how much time he has ahead of him and feels a sense of envy
towards the younger generation. Envy leads to cruelty at worst, and
insensitivity towards others at best.]
The closed community of husband and wife can't develop compassion
and sympathy in the same way that people who have to care and be
concerned for children can. With the birth of the child, the closed
community opens its gates to a newcomer. From now on it becomes
an open, hospitable community. Concerns of the parents encompass
someone else. The first born son while an infant is a source of
immeasurable joy to the parents. Parents sometimes have an ecstatic
joy over the first born, boy or girl. And if they enjoy him/her more than
any other child, then the claims of Hashem are more specific and more
complete to that child because he is the most precious of all the
children. Whatever belongs to Hashem precipitates Kedusha.

That is why we are commanded Kadesh Li Kol Bchor. Because this is

the most precious possession as far as the parents are concerned.
The child widens the community and concerns of the parents and
brings in a sense of love compassion and understanding that the
parents never had before. That is why this child is Kadosh. Hashem
claims the first born son for Himself because the parents enjoy him so
much. Hashem asks that the child be returned and that is why he is
sanctified and the concept of Pidyon HaBen applies.

115
The Jewish concept of Bchorah and the Egyptian concept are mutually
exclusive. On the night of the fifteenth of Nissan, the Judaic concept of
Bchora emerged victorious over the Egyptian concept. The main
conceptual conflict between Paroh and Moshe and Israel and Egypt
revolved around whether Bchorah is a symbol of Kedusha or one of
power.

Judaism tells us to sanctify the first born. Yet there are 3 types of
Bchor. First born to the father, first born to the mother and first born to
both parents. Kedushas Bchor depends on the first born of the mother,
regardless of whether the father has other children. The Torah
assigned Pi Shnayim, the right of Bchor to double portion,
primogeniture, to the paternal Bchor. Ki Hu Rayshis Ono. Why vis-‫א‬-vis
Kedusha does the mother determine the Bchor yet regarding
inheritance the father determines the Bchor?
The Rav explained that regarding inheritance, the paternal Bchor is
usually father's helper. He carries part of the load. He takes fathers
place in matters of business as well as manual work. [The Rav noted
that since he was the oldest he was entrusted with duties that his
father could not do. He was a helper to his father and therefore
accompanied his father on various trips where his help was needed.
Nowadays the father at home and the father at business are 2
different personas. Children have no opportunity to help and
participate because the home is destroyed. The modern home is a
house with all modern conveniences but it is not a home. The first
born being the father's helper may sound as a foreign concept to the
current generation.
The Rav quoted the example of Eli Black, a student of the Rav and
president of United Brands, a multi-billion dollar company, who
committed suicide. His wife and children had no concept of the
pressures that he was under. There is an unbridgeable gap between
home and office today. ] The oldest son was fathers substitute, helper,
his representative. That's why the Torah assigned him a double portion
in father's estate as compensation for services
performed and help extended while father was alive. After all, he
helped father accumulate his wealth and estate.
However in the patriarchic society the responsibility was focused in
the Bchor so he wielded power over his siblings, male, female and
even mother. When father got older then the oldest became the
tyrant. But even in his lifetime the authority of the father was
transferred to him. The younger child was afraid of the Bchor.
Therefore as far as Kedusha was concerned, Hashem transferred
Kedusha to the ones that suffered with their mother, the Bchor from
the mother's side, not the father's. Because the first child born to the
couple is the one that is symbolic of Peter Rechem, the opening of the
womb as well as the opening of the spiritual and emotional community

116
to both parents. Suddenly they discover that there is someone else
with whom they must be concerned. It is this child that is
distinguished through his Kedusha and not simply as someone
recognized with payment for services rendered to his father.

Hashem said Bni Bchori Yisrael. If you refuse to release him I shall slay
your first born. Hashem called Israel His first born, Bchori. If I
introduce a particular child as "my Bchor", by inference we would
understand that there are more children, but this is the oldest.
Otherwise I would say that he is my Ben Yachid, my only child. When
Hashem called Israel His Bchor, He implied that He has other sons,
otherwise He would have specified that Israel is His only son. Who are
those other sons? The answer is all the nations of the world. All people
are created B'tzelem Elokim and loved by Hashem. The child has a
code, the Tzelem Elokim that unites humankind to the Father,
Hashem. Israel's role is that of Bchor, first born. But this does not
exclude others. When Hashem gave the law at Sinai, He said "and you
shall be Segula M'kal Ha'amim, Ki Li Kal Ha'Aretz". I am giving you,
Bnay Yisrael, the law. You will be the chosen ones among all people
because all of the world and all the nations are Mine. But don't think
for a moment that I am going to abandon the rest of the world and
humanity. Israel will be selected to be on intimate terms with Hashem
to be His messengers and priests to carry the massage. But the world
will not be abandoned. Hashem told Moshe to tell Paroh this message
that Hashem does not abandon the world.

The Paternal Bchor helps the father. But the maternal Bchor also has a
most critical job, to teach the younger siblings. The older brother plays
a big role in the education of his siblings. Honoring the father and
mother is incumbent on each child because the father and mother
teach the children. This also applies to the Bchor, the oldest child who
teaches his siblings. Hashem is ready to adopt any nation if the latter
is prepared to join the covenantal comm. As long as they walk along
the righteous path of charity and justice as set forth by Abraham, they
will be welcome.
Girls have contempt for their mothers at a younger age than boys
have contempt for their fathers. The impact of an older sister on
younger ones is very great. Often the older brother or sister is the
most influential teacher. Their teaching is by osmosis, through
imitation.

The role of the Jew is to be the Bchor, to teach the rest of the world,
our siblings how to act. Sometimes a child will downplay their father or
mother as belonging to an older generation, However, an older sibling
is part of the same generation and can't be so dismissed. The parents
are involved with the house chores. But the oldest siblings, brother or

117
sister, are involved in the education of the children. The role of
teacher is not fulfilled simply by writing books. Teaching is done by
example. Kiddush Shem Shamayim does not always require
martyrdom. Rather, it can be accomplished through the daily dignified
and honest interpersonal relations of the Jew with his fellow man. If a
Jew commits a crime he is violating the assignment of teacher given to
him. Every Jew is capable of teaching. Judaism is a living discipline, Lo
Hamedrash Haikar Ela Hamaaseh (Avos 1:17). The simplest Jew can be
an effective teacher. This is the message of Bni Bchori Yisrael and
Kadesh Li Kol Bchor.
_____________________________________________________________
Copyright 2001, Josh Rapps and Israel Rivkin, Edison, NJ.
Permission to reprint this Shiur, with this notice, is granted.
To subscribe to this service, send email to listproc@shamash.org
with the following message: subscribe mj-ravtorah firstname
lastname.
hagadah.02

Shiur HaRav Soloveichik ZT?L on Hagadah and Concept of

Avdus

(shiur date: 3/15/70. Nordlicht tapes 5194/5195. Thanks to Arnie

Lustiger for providing the tapes.)

There are two aspects to slavery: 1) the juridical/political and 2) the

typological/personalistic. Under the political/political, slavery is
identical with a doctrine of totalitarian, or all inclusive, private
property. It embraces the animate and inanimate, including mankind.
The body of the slave belongs to someone other than the slave
himself. Under the second aspect of slavery, slavery represents a class
of people who think, feel and act (or react) in a distinct manner, thus
reflecting a peculiar personality. The personalistic aspect of slavery
may be found even among free men. These two aspects of slavery do
not always go hand in hand. When we say in the Hagadah (at the
conclusion of Magid) that we praise Hashem for the redemption and
freedom of our soul, it refers to both kinds of slavery. We were set free
physically and we were also liberated from the highly restrictive slave
personality.

The Halacha calls the political/juridical aspect Kinyan Mamon. The

master has property rights that one has concerning another. The
Halacha calls the personalistic aspect Kinyan Issur, which refers to the
Halachic constraints that are placed on the slave because of his
strange and peculiar personality. It behooves us to analyze the
Halachos associated with the personalistic or Kinayn Issur regarding
the slave. There are fundamentally 3 Halachos that reflect our view of

118
the slave personality. 1) Eved is relieved of time oriented Mitzvos
(Mitzvas Assay Sh’Hazeman Grama). 2) Eved is excluded from
matrimony (Ayn Lo Tfisas Kdushin). His act of betrothal does not
establish a matrimonial community. 3) The slave is disqualified as a
witness in civil and criminal cases.

The laws noted above are not just of technical significance. They are
rooted in the slave mentality and personality, in his action and
reaction. A slave (the Rav noted that we are talking about anyone who
demonstrates the slave personality, which might include free men of
distinction) is disqualified to testify in civil and criminal cases simply
because we don?t trust him. Apparently the commitment to truth or as
many ethicists and philosophers call it the “truth” norm is unknown to
the slave. Only the free man can experience that norm, not the serf.
The reason for the insensitivity of the slave to truth can be found at
two levels. In the first level, the slave is a person without options. He
has no freedom of choice between alternatives. He has only one
course of action that he can follow. When the torah talks of free people
in general and the Jew in particular, it talks of two alternative ways,
Tov and Ra, Good and Evil, Bracha and Klala. The free man has the
ability to choo!
se between them. The slave does not have that freedom of choice. He
has no faith in himself and lacks the urge and drive to initiate. His lack
of decision making ability and freedom of choice manifests in an
inability to intervene in certain situations to improve his lot. He lacks
the tools that a free man would employ to help himself under similar
circumstances. People who are not free (slaves or prisoners in
concentration camps), whose opportunities are restricted, develop a
more imaginative approach to the world. They view things the way
they would like the world and reality to be, not the way it actually is.
The inability to intervene and materially affect the reality of their
situation leads them to perceive their world through a
personalistic/subjective and slanted viewpoint in order to soothe their
ego. (The Rav noted that people with various impediments often view
the world from a slanted and imagined perspective, colored by their
own personal situation and how they wo!
uld like their world to be.) The Torah did not entrust the slave to testify
because he does not see things objectively. He sees events and
situations through his slanted subjectivity.

Another manifestation of the slave personality is his fear to contradict

others, not only those that have control or jurisdiction over him, but
even in situations that contradiction would not result in any harm to
him. A sense of unjustified fear is the motivating force in all aspects of
his life. The Rav compared this mindset to that of many inmates in
concentration camps who were afraid to contradict anyone, even a

119
child, no matter how outlandish the statement might have been. The
Torah describes most beautifully this neurotic, unjustified fear that the
Jews will experience as part of their exile and punishment. In those
nations you will not find peace and will experience fear day and night.
The Torah describes irrational fear, a phobia that is not necessarily
based in reality.

The slave deemed untrustworthy not only because of his imagination,

but also because he is motivated by unjustified fear that will not allow
him to contradict anyone of a higher station. When one testifies and
tells the truth he has to contradict and antagonize someone. A person
who is afraid to do antagonize is disqualified from giving testimony.
Simply put, the slave is essentially a frightened person. He can?t be
objective, his power of observation is determined by his imagination
and fantasy and he is engulfed in fear. The slave has no power of
observation or courage to stand up for his beliefs and ideas. The free
man is capable of telling the truth no matter the situation that he may
find himself to be in.

The Rav offered his opinion that Chazal introduced the concept of
Heseba, leaning on the side, as the symbol of freedom. The posture of
reclining on the left side is one of complete relaxation that manifests
abatement from tension or anxiety. One who is anxious can?t relax
physically. Physical relaxation leads to emotional relaxation. Also,
reclining is symbolic of the throwing off of the yoke that exists in
one?s mind that deprives him of freedom of movement. It is the
reverse of the stiff and direct posture that demonstrates obedience. A
soldier standing erect at attention symbolizes obedience. Reclining, on
the other hand, is indicative of disobedience, of a courageous stand of
rejecting the authority of man. I am stating emphatically that I am free
to relax and act as I choose. On Pesach night, the Halacha requires
that we have a relaxed posture that should be viewed as disrespectful
of those that would dominate us. We are no longer slaves. It is
indicative of the fearless!
man who is unhindered by any external forces. To appreciate that
Chazal viewed this posture as one of disrespect, they enjoined the
student sitting before his teacher from reclining because it is a
disrespectful posture, and the student is obligated to respect his
teacher. Chazal chose such a posture as the symbol of freedom
specifically because it shows disrespect from a subordinate towards
his superior. It demonstrates how the poor Jew in Egypt behaved
towards his former master on the night of the exodus.

The second Halacha is that a slave is relieved of commandments that

are time oriented. The reason is that the slave lacks the time
experience. Everything in the universe exists in time and space. All

120
evolutionary processes in nature are the result of time passage. The
organic world is intertwined with the passage of time. The
characteristic or cycle of all organic tissue is birth, life and death. The
life of any organic tissue is the inexorable approach of death. Life and
death are phenomenon experiences that can only be understood in
the context of time.

Even though everything exists in time, not everything experiences

time. Man is the only creation endowed by Hashem with the capability
of experiencing time. Man is capable of not simply living in time but to
appreciate the meaning of the passage of time as the awareness of a
time-existential stream of selfhood. Unfortunately not every human
takes advantage of the ability to experience time and not simply to
live in time. Many human beings simply flow with inexorable tide of all
powerful and irresistible time. Yet such people have denied
themselves the excitement of the experience of time.

What are the components of the time experience? (Aging is not

included, for even the animals in the field age but do not understand
the time experience.) There are 3 component parts or acts to the time
experience. 1) Retrospection. There is no time without retrospection.
By retrospection we mean re-experiencing of the past. Retrospection
for a young man is difficult, but it is very easy for an old man. Time is
memory. Without memory there is no time. 2) The time experience
consists in exploration of things yet unborn, of events not yet in
existence, the exploration of the future. The anticipatory existence of
events still unrevealed. 3) Appreciation of and valuation of the present
moment as the most precious possession one has. It is an axiological
act. Time is the most precious possession. This concept is often
overlooked by youth.

No one is capable of time awareness if retrospection is alien to him

and if he is incapable of reliving past experiences. What is Sippur
Yetzias Mitzrayim? The whole Mitzvah does not express itself simply in
relating a story of what happened. Rather, it is the reliving of the
drama. We must re-experience and relive the exodus. That is history.
Archeology describes events that disappeared long ago, and even
though they may be reproduced by memory, they are not alive. There
is no retrospection. History is not only the recorded story of events,
but it is part of the time awareness of a people or group that I reenact
and restage. No time awareness is imaginable if the latter lacks the
historical experience.

The Rav observed that the tragedy of the American Jew is based on
the fact that he forgot his past. We are not referring to the simple
stories of peasant life in Europe. Rather he lost the ability to relive

121
time as part of his own I-awareness, he lost touch with Judaism
assertion that the past is relevant and is a part of me. Rabbi Akiva is
not simply a figure that lived 1800 years ago. He and his teachings
have been integrated into our personalities. The same applies to all
the great scholars and leaders throughout the generations. Many
American Jews forfeited their time awareness and retrospection, they
became Jews without a past. The Rav met many young people who did
not know the name of their grandfather. They would say that he died a
long time ago in the “old country” and they forgot his name. Sadly,
their I-awareness begins with his death, not his life. Their time
awareness begins with their birth. The existence of the human being
does not commence with his birth. The human being is born into the
world as part of the endless stream of time. But if the world is born
with him, if he has no past on which to draw, then his world is
incomplete. On the other hand, to live in time, to feel the rhythm of
time, one must move from the memory of the past to the unreality of
the future. From events that were, to events that will be real someday.
From reminiscing to anticipating. From visions of memory to visions of
imagination. To live in time means a commitment to a great past and
an unknown future.

To facilitate time awareness, Judaism wants man to be free in order to

appreciate the moral element of responsibility for emerging events
and the anticipation that involves his intervention in the historical
process. Judaism teaches that man is created free so that he may
make central decisions that mold and fashion not only his future, but
the future of the world as well. Time awareness requires man to
intervene when intervention is called for. That is why the Hagadah
commences with Avadim Hayinu that retells our earliest history and
concludes with the eschatological vision of Nishmas Kol Chai. One
can?t relive an event without connecting past and future. In order to
connect retrospection and anticipation, one must cherish the present
fleeting moment as if it represented eternity. Judaism teaches that
each moment is valuable and precious. Each moment is the link
between the history of the past and the anticipation of the future. With
the fraction of a second, one may realize-life long hopes and
aspirations, or he may lose them.

That is why the Halacha is so time conscious. Sometimes we might

think that the Halachic obsession with time borders on the absurd. But
of course it does not. Take for example, doing work around the
boundary of the beginning of Shabbos. One may do work a minute
before sunset. If one does the same act 2 minutes later he is bound to
bring an Asham Talluy. Is one minute so important that it can now
label the person a sinner? Can the fraction of a second be that
important? We see that the fraction of a second is most important to

122
the safety of the Apollo space program. The simplest miscalculation
could spell the difference between life and death, success and failure.
Apparently the Halacha is not alone in the valuation of adherence to
time. The fulfillment of the mitzvah to recite Krias Shma in the
morning requires that it must be completed by a certain time. One
minute later, the act loses its value. There are many such cases.

The Rav mentioned the story of King Saul who failed to comply with
the explicit order of Hashem regarding the complete destruction of
Amalek. Saul sought to explain away his actions without taking
responsibility. The monarchy was taken away from him. On the other
hand, upon being told of his sin with Bas Sheva, David immediately
accepted responsibility and pleaded for forgiveness and atonement.
The prophet immediately informed him that Hashem erased his sin.
Why was David’s plea granted and Saul’s rejected? Because Saul
argued with Samuel and tried to convince Samuel that he
implemented his instructions. Only after Shmuel addressed himself to
Saul his final words of rebuke that Hashem has torn away the
monarchy from him, only then did Saul admit his failure. But it was to
late and his destiny was sealed.

This is typical of Judaism. Time is critical, not simply hours, but

seconds. Time appreciation is a singular gift granted to free man. He
can utilize time to the utmost, he can also waste it. To the free man,
time is equated with creativity, growth, opportunity and
accomplishment. Time is a gift to the free man, he wants time to slow
down. He feels the pressure of so much to do. For the slave, time is a
curse. His time is not his own, it belongs to his master. He is
insensitive towards time, life is motionless to the slave personality.
The Rav observed that American Jews, after they pass their fiftieth
birthday and the children take over the business, are frustrated that
they have too much time on their hands. They feel unwanted by their
families and unneeded by society. They are gripped with the fear of
death. Their lives become motionless and meaningless, without focus,
like the life of a slave. Torah scholars are inoculated from such
psychological turmoil. The study of Torah is always important, whether
one is young or old. The study of Torah extends the person?s view and
reveals new dimensions of existence. The free man?s life expresses
itself in the motion of physical and intellectual accomplishment,
Vzarach Hashemesh U?Ba Hashemesh, the constant striving and re-
striving to accomplish. The same can?t be said for the slave. What he
neglected to do today can be made up tomorrow. The slave lacks the
great excitement of opportunity knocking on the door and challenges
that summon man to action, of great expectations coupled with the
fear of failure. The slave never attempts and never succeeds. Any
Mitzva that is inseparably bound up with time is inapplicable to him.

123
The free man time lives a three dimensional life, past present and
future, while the slave lives in the flat uni-dimensional present. No
wonder the first cup of the Seder is bound with recital of Kiddush.
Kiddush encapsulates the concept of time. Time in the Kantian
philosophy is empty, it is a frame of reference, a coordinate system.
The same is true of physics, it is quantified and measured by space,
but it is not real time. Real time can?t be quantified. So how can one
correlate the notion of measured time with Kdushas Hayom? Kdushas
Hayom represents a living entity that is sanctified and endowed with
creativity that can?t be captured by a simple measurement. The
festivals are called Zemanim, times. Time is a blessed entity charged
with meaning and sanctity. That?s why the first sign of the free man
on the night of Pesach is to acknowledge the sanctity of this time,
through Kiddush.

The Rav explained that even though a woman is not obligated to fulfill
time bound Mitzvos, she differs from the slave in this regard. The Rav
said in the name of his father that a woman is relieved of the
obligation but if she performs it she is rewarded. Therefore the woman
recites a blessing before fulfilling a time bound Mitzvah. Her act is as
meaningful as that of a man. The woman lives in time even though
she was relieved of the obligation. The slave is completely removed
from the performance and the reward. Hence his act has no effect.

The Rambam inserted in his Hagadah that we begin Magid with the
statements that our forefathers departed Egypt in a hurry. Why is this
aspect of haste, Chipazon, so important that according to the Rambam
it became the focal point of the evening? Because Chipazon means
time consciousness. It is the excitement of hurrying, of trying to catch
up, because I miss time, and I want to make sure that I am in a
position to act when the opportunity next presents itself. Chipazon is
the attempt to cover distance, to move forward quickly. This is the
manifestation of the concept of living time. That is why the Rambam
includes the statement at the start of Magid that regarding the haste
of our forefathers when they left Egypt 2 thousand years ago, for it
was then that we regained the concept of time, and we became free.

The third typological principle is that a slave can?t effectuate a

marriage. Judaism considers marriage not only as a sociological
institution but also as a metaphysical existential community. It is not
only an economic/social partnership of disparate biological units based
on mutual benefit, but as personalistic union. Marriage means to tear
down barriers that separate individuals from each other. To step out of
the shadows of egocentricity and self concern and into the bright
spaces of joint existential experience. Marriage is supposed to
precipitate the transition from an individual to communal existence.

124
From singular to together existence. There are people who can’t
undergo the shared existential metaphysical change. They always
remain in existential retreat, isolated in metaphysical aloneness. They
are incapable of sharing basic personalistic experiences and assume
ultimate commitment towards another person beside himself.

Among the Sheva Brachos we have 2 similar blessings. The first,

Yotzer Ha?adam, is a short version. We also have Asher Yatzar which
also ends in Yotzer Haadam, a longer version. The first blessing does
not refer to Eve. The second blessing mentions the divine nature of
man?s character, his relatedness to Hashem. The second blessing also
introduces Eve and describes human nature, that man was created in
the image of God. Why? The first blessing deals with mundane, natural
man, as a natural being. The Rav was not referring to the primitive
brute. But rather to the sophisticated man, man doctor, man physicist
etc., man who is capable of traveling to the moon. It refers to a man
that can?t transcend himself or see beyond himself. He can?t
transcend his natural boundaries and biological pressures. In his
opinion there is nothing beyond nature, he is a prisoner of his own
world outlook. Such a person can never form the ideal covenantal
community. He can enter into a marriage contract for utilitarian
pragmatic reasons but he is unable to bring about an existential
community. Such a community is called Binyan Aday Ad in the second
blessing. Only the person who is created in God?s image and can
transcend himself and extend their concern for others is capable of
creating a covenantal community. The oppressed, tortured and
insecure slave lacking a sense of pride, is incapable of thinking in
terms of compassion and love for others. (The Rav was told by
inmates in concentration camps that the concept of love towards
siblings and family, and friendships towards others disappeared in the
camps. They did not know what would happen in the next minute.
They were absorbed with self preservation. Fright extinguishes
everything noble and altruistic in a person. Everyone is his enemy, he
can?t be concerned with the needs of others. The symbol of Geula in
the Torah is Korban Pesach. Pesach is distinct from all other sacrifices.
The concept of a community does not exist by other sacrifices besides
Pesach. Yet Pesach has been linked up with the concept of group to
such an extent that according to one Tana only a group may offer the
Pesach, an individual may not offer it. Why is Pesach different from all
other sacrifices in this regard? Because Pesach is the symbol of
community, it is called Seh Lbays Avos, because freedom expresses
itself in the awareness of Bayis, community. This concept of Bayis,
community, was revealed to the Jews with the dawning of their
freedom.

125
Now we have a definition of slave and free person as typological
categories. The slave is a frightened personality, living in time without
experiencing the movement of time, imprisoned to live by himself
without the ability to share his experiences with anyone else. The free
man is just the reverse.

Avadim Hayinu L?Paroh B?Mitzrayim. What is added by mentioning

that we were slaves to Paroh in Egypt? There are 2 type of slaves,
Sometimes the slave belongs to the individual. Other times the slave
is property of the state. In the US before emancipation, the slave was
the property of the individual master. In the Soviet Union, Nazi
Germany, China, there is/was slavery but the slaves were/are owned
by the state. The Hagadah tells us that we were slaves to Paroh but
not slaves to slaves. Why were Chazal concerned whether we worked
for the state or were owned by individuals? After all, both forms of
servitude are degrading.

When one is a slave to an individual master, at the personal level,

some relationship between master and slave may develop. The slave
may develop a position of power or authority within the master?s
household. He may run the affairs of the house, like Joseph did in the
house of Potifar. However, if the slave is the property of the cruel
state, then no personal relationship is possible. The state and the
oppressors of Egypt were as cruel on the first day of the servitude as
they were years later. Slaves of the state lose their identity and
become simply numbers. No matter how long an inmate may be
incarcerated, he remains as unknown to the warden as the day he
arrived in the prison. The life of the serf owned by the government
and the lives of the inmates in the concentration camps and the
gulags of Russia shared a common theme of all-consuming torture.
Egypt of antiquity and Russia were very similar. Both were corporate
states, technologically capable. In Egypt, the personality of the king
was subsumed and standardized into a common name, Paroh. There
was no individuality. We don?t know which one in particular was the
leader. They were all cruel. The Soviet dictators were also
indistinguishable from each other. They used the same terms and
language when referring to their enemies and in their attempts to
dominate those that oppose them. Both were societies based on
slavery, (and the Rav said that the Soviet systems was a slave society)
where the individuality submerges and instead of the heterogeneous
crowd of a free society you are faced with an impersonal and cruel
society, like that of Paroh and Mitzrayim.

Vayotziyanu Hashem Elokaynu Misham. In Tanach, we find the word

Saper used together with the accusative or objective case, Es. But
when it comes to Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim the objective case is

126
replaced with the ablative, Lsaper Bytzias Mitzrayim. Grammatically
the ablative case does not belong here. We find many cases where
Sapper is linked with the objective case. Why do we use the term
Lsaper B'Yetzias Mitzrayim? Because Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim is much
more than telling a story. It is an investigation, a study to comprehend,
an analysis of the exodus. (The Rav said that if he would quit his
position as Rosh Yeshiva and concentrated on the Hagadah it would
take him over a year to study it.)

Why does the Hagadah include the word Elokaynu?

We must understand the semantics of the word Elokaynu and the
phrase Hashem Elokaynu. We have the verse Shma Yisroel Hashem
Elokaynu Hashem Echad. Hashem has been accepted as our King and
whose law we are duty bound to abide by and implement. If the word
Elokaynu would have been omitted, the use of the name Hashem
(Tetragrammaton) would tell us that Hashem had mercy on us and
took us out of Egypt, just as Hashem intervenes in nature and in
various situations to rescue the oppressed from the oppressor. [Tape
cut out momentarily at this point, just before the punch line? I am
guessing that the Rav completed this thought in the following way?]
The juxtaposition of the name Elokaynu tells us that there was an
aspect of Din, judgment, associated with His actions, punishment for
the Egyptians and the selection of Bay Yisrael as the Am Hashem for
eternity. This selection was bound up with up willingness to submit to
God and surrender our new found freedom to His will.

Is the committed Jew who observes 613 Mitzvos, a free person or not?
Of course he is. Apparently we understand freedom from a different
level than most people do. When we say M?Avdus L?Chayrus, freedom
in our opinion is in the service of Hashem and conforming to His
wishes. Hashem created man as a free being, He endowed man with
the most cherished of all gifts: freedom. Yet God wants man to
surrender his precious freedom and submit to His moral law. The first
encounter between Hashem and man was the instructions given to
Adam how to live. Apparently, man who is not bound by any code and
has not surrendered to Hashem and His moral code, has not achieved
full humanity. Man?s task is to surrender his freedom, his most
precious gift. But by surrendering his freedom, man regains it, but at a
higher level.

Fundamentally man is not a free being. At the physiological level, man

is a confronted being. Man differs from the animals in the forest in that
he is a confronted challenged being. He is a prisoner of natural laws
and social institutions. Disaster can strike at any moment. He is
subject to many restrictive measures, some due to his being a natural
creature, while others are the result of his social integration. In fact,

127
the greater the role of the person, the less his freedom. From this
perspective, the President of the United States is the least free of
men. Man is a social animal and subject to praise and the opinion of
the people. All men, be they slaves or free men, are subject to
restrictions, customs and mores of behavior that make the notion of
free man nonsensical.

There is only one way to free man from his many phobias: surrender
to Hashem. In antiquity man was afraid of leprosy. Modern man is still
traumatized, but he has a different fear, fear of cancer. How many
people are traumatized by the fear of developing this dreaded
disease? Man is frightened of this possibility. The frightened man is not
free. The only way to become free of this fright is through total
surrender to God. One must have great fear of God as well. But a
great fright frees man from little, smaller frights. Surrender to God
does not mean surrender of freedom. It means that I must give up my
freedom for a short time. For example, there are times that man?s
natural urges lead him to violate certain laws, for example dietary or
sex/morality. God wants man to surrender his free will in this case for a
few seconds, till the urge passes. All man has to do is surrender
temporarily to God and in a short while he will find that he is freer
than ever before. If we had been t!
aken out of Egypt without the attribute of Elokaynu, without accepting
His code and without a willingness to surrender our freedom in order
to attain a higher level of freedom, then we would be in bondage
again. Had we exited Egypt without surrendering to Hashem and His
laws, we would ultimately have been subjugated again by someone
else, or by our fears and phobias.

B?Yad Chazakah U?Bzroah Netuyah. Jewish philosophy is based on the

concept of Vhalachta Bdrochav. We must imitate the actions and ways
of Hashem. If Hashem used Yad Chazakah and Zroah Ntuyah, we must
emulate Him and use it as well. How are we supposed to act when we
are called on to act and intervene in historical situations?

Yad Chazakah means effective action. Zroah Ntuyah means vigilance

and being prepared. The idea expressed is that man is a responsible
being. Judaism teaches that this responsibility transcends his
immediate responsibility for his own actions, it is a part if his spiritual
endowment. Man is charged with historical responsibility, Kol Yisrael
Arayvim Zeh LaZeh. Man was called on to shape history towards
worthwhile objectives. There are 2 groups of Mitzvos in Halacha,
Tzibbur and Yachid, group and individual. Man?s activism and initiative
within the historical drama is the foundation of Judaism. The individual
is called upon from time to time to participate in the emergence and
development of Knesses Yisrael. In order to participate in the historical

128
drama one must possess two capabilities: 1) always be ready for
action; 2) when action is called for, to act effectively.

Zroah Ntuya symbolizes vigilance. There are 2 aspects of vigilance. 1)

In order to be watchful, one must be totally committed and dedicated.
Who is watching? The mother is watchful when her child is ill. She is
totally committed, watchful and keen. In Tanach we find that
Mordechai portrayed such vigilance at its best. Mordechai was on
guard as soon as Esther was taken to the palace. Because he was
committed to her just like a father. A worried parent is a vigilant
parent. (Children on the other hand are not always worried about their
parents, hence they can?t be described as vigilant.) The totally
committed person stands guard against danger unconditionally. One
can?t alert someone to danger unless he is concerned. The Jewish
community must be vigilant towards Eretz Yisrael and the Orthodox
community in particular must be concerned with the preservation of
Torah. It requires full commitment. The person who is not vigilant will
act too late. 2) Vigilance goes beyond concern.
One must possess historical perspective and the ability to discriminate
between events that are truly critical and require immediate
intervention and those that can wait.

Mordechai had a sensitivity to history. He had the foresight and

prescience indispensable for crucial decision making. Esther and
Mordechai were exchanging messages. They disagreed to such an
extent that Mordechai sent her a very stern warning. The crux of the
disagreement was that Esther felt that she should wait to approach
the king. She had not been summoned to appear before the king. If
she acts prematurely she would in all likelihood be killed and then no
one will be able to intercede on behalf of the people. Since the edict
was issued before Pesach and the enactment of the edict was not due
to happen for another year, there would be ample opportunity to act
over the coming year. After all, over such a long period of time she will
surely receive an invitation to appear before the king and at that time
she would plead for the people. Mordechai disagreed and insisted that
she act immediately. Mordechai was obviously right. He was sensitive
to the needs of the situation. It is easy to rationalize secondary
decisions of preference, why I like this car and not the other one. But
when one asks why he is willing to sacrifice his life for a situation or a
community, he cannot offer a rational explanation. Suddenly a light
goes on and I grope towards my destination, to my decision. I know
that I will somehow get there, but I don?t know how.

Shuvi Shuvi Hashulamis, the gentile people address themselves to

Knesses Yisrael. Why do you show such dedication to Hashem and
Torah? Come back to us and forget about all of that. Why remain a

129
Jew? Give up your madness and your unlimited, bizarre commitment.
She answers what can I tell you, I am involved in a dance between two
camps, I cannot free myself from the dance. One cannot be a non-Jew,
it is a part of me that I can?t explain or rationalize. It is a basic
experience that can?t be explained or changed. It is an eternal
commitment that is part of my I-awareness and my existence. Can I
explain my relationship to my parents and children? I cannot define
my existence in terms of a lack of commitment to God, like you. I must
define it in terms of what I am committed to, to God and His Torah. It
is the central experience and such an experience can?t be explained.
Mordechai could not explain his pressure on Esther, he just knew that
eventually he would be proven right. This dance is an eternal dance
that the Jewish community is engaged in till the coming of Moshiach.

When the Jew intervenes he must do it with a full heart. The Jewish
community never undertook half measures in the past.

Afilu Kulanu Chachamim, Kulanu Nvonim? Haray Zeh Mshubach. This is

subject to two interpretations. One is subjunctive. The other uses the
grammatical indicative. One explanation of the statement is that even
if all of us were wise and if all of us were intelligent and if all of us
were scholars we would still be obligated to tell the story of the
exodus. But it is quite tempting to interpret the statement in the
indicative: We are wise and we are scholars and we do know the Torah,
we are still obligated to study the exodus. The verse does not refer to
the hypothetical but rather the reality. Also, if the subjunctive is
correct, and we really are not capable, then why do we have to relate
the story? On the other hand, if we are using the indicative form,
doesn?t it smack of haughtiness?

The Rav said that the indicative form is applicable here as well. The
obligation on this night is to study the events that occurred in Egypt.
We don?t tell the complete tale. We read and explain the Parsha of
Arami Oveyd Avi instead of the complete story as written in Sefer
Shmos. If the goal was to simply tell the story on the night of Pesach,
we would have studied Sefer Shmos instead. We only mention the
highlights and we are interested in exploring the verses of Arami
Oveyd Avi. Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim is inseparably linked with Talmud
Torah on the night of Pesach. It is a Mitzvah of Talmud Torah. The Torah
has prepared unique answers for the questions of the 4 sons, but
there is a common denominator: teach them about Egypt and the
exodus, but teach them the laws, Talmud Torah. The 4 answers that
the Torah prepared are indicative that we must teach each child
according to his ability. Every Jew is endowed with the potential to
comprehend Torah. Rabbi Simlai says that each fetus is taught Torah
within the womb and the angel slaps him prior to birth and he forgets.

130
Why teach him if he will forget? Because Torah must be acquired
through hard work. If so why teach him in the womb? In order that
subsequent study of Torah during his lifetime should be a process of
remembering something that he once knew. Plato said that all learning
is remembering. Since he knew it once it is not alien and he can
reproduce it again.

The potential of studying Torah is latent in every Jew. Every Jew can be
a great scholar and attain Chachma, Binah and Daas. Even one who
has failed to take advantage of the gift to study Torah. If a good
teacher explains it, each Jew will be able to learn and follow. Torah is
the possession of the entire Knesses Yisrael. The democratic
philosophy of education is the Jewish philosophy. throughout world
history, access to education was controlled by the aristocracy. Judaism
always insisted on an exoteric approach to Torah education, that the
opportunity to study and acquire knowledge be given to everyone.
Because the Torah is not outside the Jew but it resides in the Jew.
Sometimes he is conscious of it. Sometimes he is not. There is the
knowledge of Torah and the sensitivity towards Torah.

On Pesach night we reenact the events where each Jew beheld the
divine revelation. The revelation was a public spectacle not only at the
Red Sea, but also on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan. On that night
every Jew was wise, sensitive and intelligent. Every Jew felt the
presence of God, and was initiated into the inner circle. The Jews that
left Egypt were met by Hashem. Each Jew must reenact that feeling of
encountering the Shechina on the night Pesach.
-----------------------------------
Copyright 2002, Josh Rapps and Israel Rivkin, Edison, NJ. Permission to
reprint this Shiur, with this notice, is granted. To subscribe to this
service, send email to listproc@shamash.org with the following
message: subscribe mj-ravtorah firstname lastname

---------------------- mj-ravtorah@shamash.org ---------------------+

Hosted by Shamash: The Jewish Network http://shamash.org
A service of Hebrew College, offering online courses and an
online MA in Jewish Studies, http://hebrewcollege.edu/online/
---------------------- mj-ravtorah@shamash.org ---------------------=

131
 Pesach: The Four Cups of Yosef
Selection from “Emanations”
© Rabbi Ari D. Kahn
Targum Press 2002

http://arikahn.tripod.com/emanations/

On Pesach, one of the central aspects of the Seder is the four cups of wine. Unlike the
Matzah or Paschal Offering (korban), the wine is a Rabbinic obligation, whose source,
according to the Talmud, is the four expressions of redemption in God’s declaration to the
children of Israel:

Therefore say to the people of Israel, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from
under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you from their slavery, and I will
redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments. And I will take
you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and you shall know that I am
the Lord your God, who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
[Shmot 6:6,71]

However when one consults the Yerushalmi we find other traditions concerning the
symbolism of the four cups. The Talmud notes that the word "cup" is mentioned four times
in the narrative of Yosef and the wine steward. (Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 10:1, page
37c). While this is indeed the case, the association seems obscure at first glance. On the
other hand, we should consider that Yosef's descent to Egypt marked the beginning of the
exile of the children of Ya’akov, or, if you will, the antithesis of redemption. However, the
association runs deeper: Yosef, who languishes in the pit of the Egyptian legal system, puts
his faith in the wine steward, who will one day mention the name and talents of this Jewish
boy to the king, Par’oh. On that very day, Yosef undergoes an incredible metamorphosis:
One day a slave, the next a king. This prototype is also embedded in the story the Exodus:
the story of the slave who became king, the story of God’s salvation which takes place in
the blink of an eye. The Jews’ exodus is as stunning as Yosef’s metamorphosis: One day
they are slaves, and the next day they are free. The downtrodden rise above their
oppressors, acquire all the wealth of Egypt, and change the Egyptian Empire forever.

When Yosef and his brothers meet after years of separation and Yosef’s metamorphosis is
complete, the tension of the preceding chapters finally reaches its crescendo. Yosef is
unable to contain himself, and with a few words he startles and frightens his brothers.

1
The next verse has a fifth expression “And I will bring you in to the land.” This may be the source for
the fifth cup, which is on the table and not drunk: the cup of Eliyah. See Haggada Sh’lema by Rav M.
Kasher for a full discussion. Also see the discussion in Chokei HaZmanim volume 2 by Rav Alter
Hilovitz, where he claims to have written about this idea prior to the publication of Rav Kasher’s book

132
Then Yosef could not restrain himself before all those who stood by
him; and he cried, 'Remove every man from before me.' And there
stood no man with him, while Yosef made himself known to his
brothers. And he wept aloud; and the Egyptians and the house of
Par’oh heard. And Yosef said to his brothers, 'I am Yosef; does my
father still live?' And his brothers could not answer him; for they were
panic-stricken by his presence. (45:1-3)

While his brothers stand in shock Yosef continues his soliloquy:

And Yosef said to his brothers, 'Come near me, I beg you.' And they
came near. And he said, 'I am Yosef your brother, whom you sold into
Egypt. Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that
you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life. For
these two years has the famine been in the land, and there will be yet
another five years without plowing or harvest. And God sent me
before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your
lives by a great deliverance. So now it was not you who sent me here,
but God; and he has made me an advisor (literally, father) to Par’oh,
and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt.
Hurry back to my father, and say to him, "Thus said your son Yosef,
God has made me lord of all Egypt; come down to me, delay not. And
you shall live in the land of Goshen, and you shall be near me, you,
and your children, and your grandchildren, and your flocks, and your
herds, and all that you have. And I will sustain you there, for there are
another five years of famine; lest you, and your household, and all
that you have come to poverty." And, behold, your eyes see, and the
eyes of my brother Binyamin, that it is my mouth that speaks to you.
And you shall tell my father of all my glory in Egypt, and of all that you
have seen; and you shall hurry and bring down my father here.(Shmot
45:4-13)

While the initial burst of speech - the incredible disclosure - seems to be an explosion of
emotion2, the second part of Yosef's talk sounds more measured, perhaps rehearsed. Here
Yosef speaks, not merely in practical, human or personal terms3. Yosef speaks again, using
the words of the visionary that he is. Yosef shares his theological perspective of recent
history with his brothers.

And Yosef said to his brothers, 'Come near me, … for God sent me
before you to preserve life. For these two years has the famine been
in the land; and there will be yet another five years without plowing or
harvest. And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in
2
The question "Is my father alive" seems illogical. If Ya'akov were dead, why would Yehuda risk his neck
to save Binyamin?
3
Yosef speaks twice without response. It sounds as if the repetition of the phrase, "And Yosef said"
indicates a change in tone. Similarly in Bereishit 20:9,10 Avimelech speaks, and speaks again. The shift
in that case may be attributed to a change in tone, from cynicism to curiosity.

133
the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So now it was
not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me an advisor
to Par’oh, and lord of his entire house, and a ruler throughout all the
land of Egypt. Hurry back to my father, and say to him, "Thus said
your son Yosef, God has made me lord of all Egypt; come down to me,
delay not…" (ibid)

Yosef's words are peppered with references to God. While his first words inform his
brothers that he, Yosef, still lives, the second message conveyed is that Yosef is still
spiritually intact. This is one cause of the brothers' shock: Perhaps Yosef, with great
resilience and ingenuity, could have remained alive, but he could not possibly have
survived the depravity of Egypt and emerged unscathed. Part of the brothers' problem vis
a vis Yosef was their constant and continued underestimation of him. They never thought
they would bow down to him, nor did they think that anyone else would prostrate
themselves before Yosef. Yosef as lord of Egypt was an idea beyond their wildest dreams.
But if there was a more bizarre suggestion, it was that Yosef would survive spiritually. The
path toward the highest echelon in any society is fraught with spiritual landmines, all the
more so in ancient Egypt. If Yosef survived, and indeed flourished, the brothers surmised
that his soul would have been bought and sold numerous times, retaining no sanctity.
Yosef would surely be a corrupt shell of his former self, whom the brothers did not
particularly respect in the first place.

Now we understand Yosef's numerous references to God. He speaks in theological terms,

indicating that he has, indeed, survived. The brothers need not fear: Yosef continues to
speak the language of his youth. The boy who sat on Yitzchak's knee, the boy who was
closest to their saintly father Ya'akov, yet lives. It is Yosef who lives, not some Egyptian
despot. From his words we see that Yosef has not only survived, he has thrived.

Such references to God were not always a part of Yosef's speech. In Yosef's first dream,
and indeed, in his first words in the Torah, we find his vision, but no Divine perspective.

And Yosef dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers; and they
hated him even more. And he said to them, 'Hear, I beg you, this
dream which I have dreamed; For, behold, we were binding sheaves in
the field, and, lo, my sheaf arose, and stood upright; and, behold, your
sheaves stood around, and made obeisance to my sheaf.' And his
brothers said to him, 'Shall you indeed reign over us, or shall you
indeed have dominion over us?' And they hated him even more for his
dreams, and for his words. And he dreamed yet another dream, and
told it to his brothers, and said, 'Behold, I have again dreamed a
dream; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made
obeisance to me.' (Bereishit 37, 5-9)

Yosef tells of his dreams, but we do not know if God plays a part in his worldview. When
the wife of Potifar makes her advances, Yosef does speak of God:

134
And it came to pass after these things, that his master’s wife cast her
eyes upon Yosef; and she said, 'Lie with me.' But he refused, and said
to his master’s wife, 'Behold, my master knows not what is with me in
the house, and he has committed all that he has to my hand. There is
none greater in this house than I, nor has he kept back any thing from
me but you, because you are his wife; how then can I do this great
wickedness, and sin against God? (Bereishit 39, 7-9)

While Yosef's consciousness of God certainly aided him in his battle against his desires, it
does not seem to impress this wanton woman.

The next time we see Yosef is in his prison cell, where he again makes references to God,
but again his listeners do not hear:

And they said to him, 'We have dreamed a dream, and there is no
interpreter of it.' And Yosef said to them, 'Do interpretations not
belong to God? Tell them to me, I beg you.' And the chief butler told
his dream to Yosef, and said to him, 'In my dream, behold, a vine was
before me…'And Yosef said to him, 'This is the interpretation of it: The
three branches are three days…But think of me when it shall be well
with you, and show kindness, I beg you, to me, and make mention of
me to Par’oh, and bring me out of this house; For indeed I was stolen
away from the land of the Hebrews; and here also have I done nothing
that they should put me in the pit…' Yet the chief butler did not
remember Yosef, and forgot him. (Bereishit 40:8-23)

The Rabbis perceived within this dialogue a sin on the part of Yosef:

Another interpretation: ‘Happy is the man that has made the Lord his
trust’ alludes to Yosef. ‘And hath not turned unto the arrogant nor unto
such as fall away treacherously’: Because he said to the chief butler,
'But think of me... and make mention of me' (Bereishit 40, 14), two
years were added to his sufferings. (Midrash Rabbah - Bereishit 89:3)

Yosef, who speaks of God's dominion over all things, including dreams, has sinned in the
eyes of the sages, by not trusting sufficiently in God.

Indeed, when the butler recalls the conversation and remembers Yosef's power to interpret
dreams, God is not in his vocabulary.

And there was there with us a young man, a Hebrew, servant to the
captain of the guard; and we told him, and he interpreted to us our
dreams; to each man according to his dream he did interpret. And it
came to pass, as he interpreted to us, so it was; me he restored to my
office, and him he hanged. (Bereishit 41:12,13)

135
Over the next few years we discern a change in Yosef. The ideas of which he spoke earlier
now become solidified. When Par’oh approaches, it is no longer Yosef’s personal God of
whom he speaks, nor a passing reference. Now Yosef succeeds in affecting others with his
belief.

Then Par’oh sent and called Yosef, and they brought him hastily out of
the dungeon; and he shaved himself, and changed his garment, and
came in to Par’oh. And Par’oh said to Yosef, 'I have dreamed a dream,
and there is none who can interpret it; and I have heard say of you,
that you can understand a dream to interpret it.' And Yosef answered
Par’oh, saying, It is not in me; God shall give Par’oh a favorable
answer … And Yosef said to Par’oh, The dream of Par’oh is one; God
has revealed to Par’oh what he is about to do... This is the matter
which I have spoken to Par’oh; What God is about to do he shows to
Par’oh… And for that the dream was doubled to Par’oh twice; it is
because the matter is established by God, and God will shortly bring it
to pass…And Par’oh said to his servants, 'Can we find such a one as
this is, a man in whom is the spirit of God?' And Par’oh said to Yosef,
'For as much as God has shown you all this, there is none so discreet
and wise as you are' (Bereishit 41:14-39)

The impossible seems to have transpired: Not only does Yosef speak of God, but his belief
is infectious. The corrupt, self-made deity, Par’oh, speaks of God. Yosef was not changed
by Egypt, Egypt was changed by Yosef. This idea is critical in understanding a later
chapter in the Torah:

When the time for the Exodus had arrived, Moshe was instructed to ask Par’oh for
permission to leave for three days:

Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, 'The
Lord God of your fathers, the God of Avraham, of Yitzchak, and of
Ya'kov, appeared to me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen
that which is done to you in Egypt. And I have said, ‘I will bring you
out of the affliction of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites, and the
Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the
Jebusites, to a land flowing with milk and honey. And they will heed
your voice; and you shall come, you and the elders of Israel, to the
king of Egypt, and you shall say to him, 'The Lord God of the Hebrews
has met with us; and now let us go, we beseech you, three days’
journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our
God.' And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, if not by
a mighty hand. (Sh'mot 3:16-19)

And afterward Moshe and Aharon went in, and told Par’oh, 'Thus said
the Lord God of Israel, "Let my people go, that they may hold a feast
for me in the wilderness."' And Par’oh said, 'Who is the Lord, that I
should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, nor will I let

136
Israel go.' And they said, 'The God of the Hebrews has met with us; let
us go, we pray you, three days’ journey into the desert, and sacrifice
to the Lord our God; lest he fall upon us with pestilence, or with the
sword.' (Sh'mot 5:1-4)

I once heard Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik pose an intriguing question regarding these
passages: What would have happened had Par’oh allowed the Jews to leave for three
days? Would they have returned afterward? Would the promise of the Land of Milk and
Honey have gone unfulfilled? Would they really have returned to Egypt? Of course, the
question is a tautology: God had already stated that Par’oh would not acquiesce. Why,
then, ask for three days' leave, especially when the object of the Exodus is complete,
permanent liberation?

The purpose of the three-day sojourn would have been to receive the Torah. After
receiving the Torah, the Jewish People would have returned to Egypt. After teaching the
Egyptians and impacting, even revolutionizing Egyptian society, they would have
continued their march toward destiny, to the Land of Israel. Such a march would have
been qualitatively different from the circuitous path they eventually took.

Had the Egyptians, the greatest nation in antiquity, been sufficiently theologically mature
to encourage the Jews to worship God, the path to the messianic age would have been
inestimably shorter. But how could the Egyptians possibly have reached such spiritual
heights? The answer is that the prototype for influencing the local population was Yosef.
Just as the name of God reverberates from Par’oh's lips after one meeting with Yosef, the
entire nation should have been spiritually invigorated after interfacing with the Jewish
nation over a period of hundreds of years.

This is part of the reason for the exile to have been specifically in Egypt. This corrupt,
twisted society would have to be either healed or obliterated in order for a messianic age
to flourish. Our tradition has no illusions about Egypt4:

Do not do the actions of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, and do
not do the actions of the land of Canaan, where I bring you; nor shall
you walk in their ordinances. (Vayikra 18:3)

Similarly when Israel were in Egypt the Egyptians practiced whoring;

as it says, 'Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses' (Yehezkel 23, 20).
When they entered the land of Canaan the Canaanites practiced
whoring and witchcraft; as it says, 'Because of the multitude of the
harlotries of the well-favored harlot, the mistress of witchcraft'
(Nahum 3, 4). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: 'My
children, be careful that you not act either in accordance with the
practice of these or in accordance with the practice of those.’ Hence it
is written, 'Do not do the actions of the land of Egypt, where you
dwelt, and do not do the actions of the land of Canaan, where I bring
4
See the Sifra Achari Mot 8, (cited in Rambam Issuri Beah 21:8) where a number of the offences of the
Egyptians are enumerated, including lesbianism, and other sexual rebellions and peccadilloes.

137
you; nor shall you walk in their ordinances.' (Midrash Rabbah - Vayikra
23:7)

We have learned that these ten species of wisdom came down to this
world, and all were concentrated in Egypt, save one which spread
through the rest of the world. They are all species of sorcery, and
through them the Egyptians were more skilled in sorcery than all other
men. (Zohar, Vayikra, Section 3, Page 70a)

If Egyptian society could be spiritually healed, the entire world would surely follow suit.
Egypt was the epicenter of the ancient world. Unfortunately, the Jews as a People did not
rise to the challenge. They were not successful in reaching out to the surrounding culture
in any meaningful way, and did not reach the spiritual stratosphere, which was Yosef's
domain. After Yosef's death, a new king arises who knows neither Yosef nor the God of
Yosef:

And Yosef died, and all his brothers, and all that generation…And
there arose a new king over Egypt who did not know Yosef. (Sh'mot
1:6,8)

And Par’oh said, "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice to let
Israel go? I know not the Lord, nor will I let Israel go." (Sh'mot 5:2)

With Yosef gone, the possibility of influencing the Egyptians seems to evaporate. By
telling the Jews that they are to ask for three days, they are being told that this is the way
it should have been: A three-day journey, following the two-hundred-year exile, should
have been enough to revolutionize Egypt.

If this seems impossible, they, and we, should remember that Yosef changed Par’oh's
outlook in but one conversation. The crux of the matter is never to underestimate the
power of the idea of God, or for that matter, never to underestimate the power of the
Jewish people to convey that idea. The power contained therein is sufficient to change the
world, and Yosef's greatness lay in his awareness and use of this power.

When we drink from the four cups of wine we must recall the sudden transformation from
slavery to freedom, how Yosef metamorphosed from slave to king. When we drink the
wine we should taste the possibility of our own transformation, and always recall that the
salvation of God is in the blink of an eye. That is the secret of redemption.

138