Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev

~"ca
םירצמ תאיצי רופיס
By Dani Scheinman, 12th Grade, Editor-in-Chief
Volume XIII- Issue 14

The DRS Weekly Torah Publication
H

A

L

B

n
a
·
o
·

a
:

H

A

L

B

Indifference
By Avrumi Blisko, 12th Grade, Editor-in-Chief
O
n the night of the Seder, every Jew has an obligation to tell over the story of Yetzias Mitzrayim, of Hashem tak-
ing us out of Egypt. The well-known question posed regarding this Mitzvah is if every single day we have the
Mitzvah to remember that Hashem took us out of Mitzrayim, how is this Mitzvah on the night of the Seder any
different?
One common answer given is that the Mitzvah on the night of the Seder is specifically that of םירצמ תאיצי רופיס,
whereas the Mitzvah to remember Yetzias Mitzrayim every other day is one known as םירצמ תאיצי רכז. What exactly is the
difference between these Mitzvos though? If both require one to remember the story of our redemption from Egypt, what
distinction can be made between the two?
There are many answers given to further clarify the difference between the Mitzvah of םירצמ תאיצי רופיס and that
of םירצמ תאיצי רכז. The Minchas Chinuch explains that the Mitzvah of רופיסon the night of the Seder is different in the
fact that the story must be told over in a question and answer format. Instead of merely mentioning the story in the normal
fashion, the way one is required every day, one must ask questions and give answers to describe the events of Yetzias
(Continued on page 4)
D¹R3\¹Þ D¹¬3"
If you are interested in sponsoring
an edition of
a:n ¡n n·×xi·n n·:a~. email us at
DvarimHayotzim@gmail.com
I
n Parshas Va’eira, by the maccah of barad (hail), the passukim (9:20/21) say, “Whoever
among the servants of Paroh that feared the word of Hashem chased his servants and his
livestock to the houses. And whoever didn’t take the word of Hashem to heart - he left his
servants and livestock in the field.”
Rabbi Lamb asks, how is “lo shas libo”- whoever didn’t take the word of Hashem to
heart, the opposite of “hayiray es davar Hashem”- whoever feared the word of Hashem? The
opposite of “yiray shamayim” should be “lo yiray shamayim”- someone who doesn’t fear the
word of Hashem?
He answers, explaining that someone who isn’t a yiray shamayim doesn’t mean he is
someone who doesn’t believe in Hashem, rather it’s someone who knows about Hashem, but
just doesn’t care. Someone who’s not yiray shamayim is someone who is indifferent to what’s
going on around him, someone who doesn’t care.
The Shulchan Aruch illustrates this point by asking - why do we have to cover the
knives by benching? He answers that the table symbolizes arichas yamim so we don’t want to
‘cut’ it short. He brings a second answer as well: There once was a man who was benching and
got so depressed while reciting the paragraph of “u’vnei Yerushalayim,” that he stabbed him-
self with one of the knives that were on the table.

(Continued on page 12)

PESACH YOM 1
15 NISSAN, 5772
APRIL 7, 2012
All Zmanim are calculated by myzmanim.com for
Woodmere, NY (11598)
Candle Lighting: 7:07 pm
Latest עמש תאירק: 9:42 am
Y”T Day 2: 8:07 pm
The staff of
a:n ¡n n·×xi·n n·:a~
wish you a
!!חמש גח
This week’s issue and every issue of
a:n ¡n n·×xi·n n·:a~
is sponsored by
GourmetGlatt.com • 516.569.2662
2
לה ןמ םיאצויה םירבד “ ב
Torah Teasers
By Rabbi Moshe Erlbaum
הדגה
Questions
1. In what קוספ , that we say every
day, is read in the הדגהand is the only
place where Moshe’s name is men-
tioned?
2. What expression describing Ha-
shem appears over 11 times in the
הדגהbut nowhere in the Torah?
3. What השרפis the Torah text of the
הדגהfound in?
4. a) Which םיאנתare mentioned
twice? (3 answers) b) What are all the
other םיאנתfound? (6 answers)
5. Which הכמappears twice?
6. Which letter appears the most times
(9) in the רדסה ינמיס ?
7. Which of the רדסה ינמיסhave a
letter doubled in its name? (4 answers)
8. a) How many וניידs are there? b)
How many other sets of praise to Ha-
shem in the רודיסhave the same
number? (4 answers)
Answers
1. בו 'דב ונימאיו" השמ "ודבע in the
paragraph after the 10 תוכמ .
2. אוה ךורב שדקה
3. Beginning of אובת יכ .
4. a) אביקע יבר , רזעילא יבר and יבר
אירזע ןב רזעילא . b) עשוהי יבר , יבר
ןופרט , אמוז ןב , ילילגה יסוי יבר , ןבר
לאילמגand הדוהי יבר .
5. םדand רבד .
6. The letter שיר .
7. הצמ איצומ , רורמ , ךרוכ , ללה
8. a) 15. b) (1) The 15 Psalms
known as Shir HaMa’a lot; (2) The
15 generations from Abraham to
Solomon; (3) the 15 praises in
Emet V’yatziv following the She-
ma; (4) the 15 blessings in the
Birkot Hashahar.
Usually when you think of a state science fair, you think of nerds,
glasses, and complex equations that you'll never even attempt to compre-
hend. But this year at NYSSEF (New York State Science and Engineering
Fair) there was a little twist. After the two rounds of judging, generally, eve-
ryone goes off to hang out with friends, mess around and have fun. In no
ones wildest imagination is this a place of Mitzvot and radical change.
However, this year was different.
I realized we had about 4 hours to spend and instead of hocking
around, maybe I could make a big impact and do a big mitzvah. While I did
have an Iggeres Haramban on me, I'm not one to give a Shiur. So I took out
my Teffilin and figured maybe, just maybe, Hashem would help me find a
Yid that hasn't put on Tefillin yet today so that I can give that opportunity.
Little did I know that simple idea would change my outlook on Tefillin for-
ever.
I got a friend to come with me, and we awkwardly went around to
social groups asking if anyone is Jewish. We got a lot of no’s and even
some antisemitic comments but, "Mi Kamamcha Yisroel", we took it smiled
and walked away knowing that passing that test Hashem would surely give
us a reward so we kept our hope up high and then we started finding some
of our brothers. We asked them to put on Tefillin, an act which almost all of
them had not done since their Bar Mitzvah. Most of the Tefillin
"ceremonies", as our brothers called them, went relatively the same way.
When we got up to Sam the story went a bit different. Unlike many
of the others, he had not ever even put on Tefillin in his life and was a bit
adamant to it, which is understandable. After being prodded on by his non
Jewish friends and still being adamant, I told him perhaps if he does this
Mitzvah Hashem will help him win ( My basis for saying this was only to
help out a Jew and I figured what’s to lose). He finally agreed, for the first
time in his life he put on Tefillin and said "Va' ayrastich Lee Le'Olam" (I
will betroth You (Hashem) to me forever) and Krias Shema. This was Sam's
Bar Mitzvah and one of his first exposures to Orthodox Judiasm.
Around an hour later we were called into an auditorium for the an-
nouncement of the winners, about 500 projects were entered into the compe-
tition. Everyone is sitting nervous, thinking who will win, could it be me?
The director gave some nice words of encouragement then the 1st winner
called up, you'll never believe it and to be honest, a week later, it is still sur-
real to me, was SAM!!! The one that just put on Tefillinn for the very first
time and that belief, the true Emunah and Bitachon in the Tefillin, has the
potential to lead to greatness.
It just comes to show, its not just how much you do it, its the quali-
ty of what you did, how much you believed in it, and how much you cared.
Lets take this message with us into Shabbos and think about the Aichus
(Quality) not just the Kamos (Quality) and if we believe in the Mitzvoth,
hopefully we can finally bring the Korban Peseach once again this year.

Have a great Yom Tov!
True Emunah
By Yaakov Hawk,
11th Grade
Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev 3
The Medrash says that the cause of Bnei Yisroel’s
exile to Egypt was because the sons of Yaakov sold the
son of Rachel. It seems very odd that the Medrash would
say that the brothers sold the son of Rachel instead of
simply saying Yosef. The pasuk says in Yirmiyahu that
Rachel “cried on her son.” The Medrash says that out of
all the cries from the Avos and Imahos for the exile of the
Jews, only the cries of Rachel were heard by Hashem. This
Medrash also seems odd. Why did Rachel merit that only
her cries would be heard by Hashem?
There is another strange Medrash that says when
the brothers sold Yosef they needed a minyan. Yosef was
not considered part of the minyan, Binyamin was with
Yaakov Aveinu, and Reuvain had gone to tell his father of
the plot and put into action his plan to save Yosef. So who
completed the minyan? The Medrash concludes that the
brothers invoked the presence of Hashem to complete their
minyan.
The Torah says (Bereshis 29:17), “The eyes of
Leah were tender.” The Medrash explains that Leah was
crying because her younger sister, Rachel, was getting
married before her. When Rachel heard the cries of her
sister she selflessly gave Leah the signs and told her to get
married instead of her.
With this information, we are able to piece togeth-
er all of the Medrashim: The first Medrash emphasizes
Rachel to show how the brothers should have heard the
cries of Yosef’s mother Rachel, just as Rachel heard the
cries of their mother Leah.
The pasuk in Shemos (3:14) says that when Moshe
questioned Hashem as to why Moshe should lead the Jews
out of Egypt. Hashem replied, “I Shall Be As I Shall Be…
So shall you say to the Jews ‘I Shall Be has sent me to
you’ ”. The Hebrew word for “I Shall Be” is “Eheyeh.”
Here, Hashem has clearly chosen a new name to be re-
ferred to with – why is this so?
The truth is, this is not the first place where the
name “Eheyeh” is used. The first place is the Medrash that
spoke of the minyan, above. The Medrash states that the
brothers invoked the presence of Hashem, “Eheyeh” came.
Now we can make sense of these many Midrashim
and fit them into the story of where our exile first began.
The brothers ignored the cries of Rachel, which caused
them to be exiled. When they sold Yosef they needed a
minyan, and “Eheyeh” completed the minyan. Then, when
Hashem tells Moshe to tell the Jews “Eheyeh has sent me
to you,” that is when the Jews knew that the exile would
begin to wane. The word “Eheyeh” started the exile, and
ended it as well. This is where it all began and where it
ended.
May we all merit seeing the end of our own exile
Bimhera Biyameinu.

Adapted from Rabbi Moshe Faskowitz

Have a Chag Kosher Vesameach!

Where it Starts and
Where it Ends
By Jonathan Perlman,
12th Grade
"Call it fate, call it a miracle, call it anything you want," said Mrs. Glatt as she concluded the story about
her brother and cousin. "But one thing is clear. We, the Jewish people, with our abundance of faith, will somehow
manage to survive forever."
After a brief silence she added: "I am the great-granddaughter of Rabbi Raphael Zimtboim, the personal
secretary (gabbai) of the Zanzer Rabbi, Rabbi Hayyim Halberstam (1793-1876). The rabbi was lame, and many
times my great-grandfather, Reb Raphael, carried him around. Maybe it was his merit, my brother's innocent faith,
and the merit of his tefillin that protected all of us. the tefillin belonged to Reb Raphael."
"And your brother, where is he now?"
"Shortly after liberation, he died. His lungs were very damaged by Gardelegen fires. But he died a free
man!"
Based on interview by Debbie Kaiserer with Mrs. Glatt on April 25, 1976.
(Stories of Greatness—Continued from page 16)
4
לה ןמ םיאצויה םירבד “ ב
Mitzrayim. A second explanation given is that, because the Yom Tov of Pesach is based upon Yetzias Mitzrayim, the Mitzvah
given to us on the night of the Seder of םירצמ תאיצי רופיס is to tell the story in a lengthy manner. All other days, however, the
Mitzvah of םירצמ תאיצי רכז only dictates that one must at least mention this great miracle, but does not require one to discuss
Yetzias Mitzrayim at length. A third explanation suggested is that, whereas the Mitzvah of םירצמ תאיצי רכז is an independent
Mitzvah that can be performed at any instance, םירצמ תאיצי רופיס is a Mitzvah that must be intertwined with the other Mitzvos
of the Seder. Clearly, these two Mitzvos of םירצמ תאיצי רופיס and that of םירצמ תאיצי רכז are different from one another.
The Amek Brachah asks the following question: Seeing as the Mitzvah on the night of the Seder is not the same as the
Mitzvah of remembering Yetzias Mitzrayim every day, why mention the incident of “Amar Rabi Elazar Ben Azariyah, Harei
Ani K’Ben Shivim Shanah…” during Maggid; this story highlights the Mitzvah of םירצמ תאיצי רכז while the Mitzvah that one is
obligated to focus on during the Seder is that of םירצמ תאיצי רופיס.
He answers, so beautifully, that the Baal Haggadah wanted to explain to us this precise distinction between the two
Mitzvos through the order in which the Maggid was organized. The paragraph of “Amar Rabi Elazar Ben Azariyah,” introduc-
es this exact question of, “How are these two Mitzvos different?” The rest of the Maggid is laid out to describe the three expla-
nations given to clarify this distinction. After we ask the question through the story of “Amar Rabi Elazar Ben Azariyah,” the
first explanation is given through the paragraph of the four sons; we see that on the night of the Seder, the story of Yetzias
Mitzrayim must be told in the form of questions and answers. Immediately after the discussion of the sons, we tell the entire,
lengthy story of Yetzias Mitzrayim. This is the second explanation, as we see the Mitzvah of םירצמ תאיצי רופיס must be done at
great length. Finally, after we finish relaying the story, we discuss the statement of Raban Gamliel, how one is required to ful-
fill the Mitzvos of the Korban Pesah, the Matzah, and the Marror on the night of the Seder. This explains that םירצמ תאיצי רופיס
is different in the fact that it must be intertwined with these other three Mitzvos of the Seder. Obviously the order of the Mag-
gid has a much deeper understanding, one that helps to distinguish between the Mitzvos of םירצמ תאיצי רופיס and םירצמ תאיצי רכז.

Have a Chag Kasher V’Sameach!
(Dani Scheinman—Continued from page 1)
The first step of the Seder is Kadesh, in which we recite the Kiddush over wine, sanctifying the night and the
holiday. What is the significance of beginning the night with this step?
The step of Kadesh, the sanctification of the holiday, is something that the nation of Israel can do only when
they themselves are sanctified and holy. What is this sanctity and holiness?
Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, the "Or Sameach" connects the sanctity of Israel and the holiday to a state-
ment of our sages, Cha"zal. Cha"zal have told us that the four cups of wine we drink on the Seder night are repre-
sentative of the four expressions of redemption, the "Arba L'Shonos shel Ge'ulah" that Hashem uttered regarding our
redemption. R' Meir Simcha notes that we see a connection between Kedusha - holiness, and seperation from illicit
relationships - Arayot, from the Torah. This is true, as the portion dealing with Arayot is placed next to the portion
known as "Kedoshim," which begins with a statement saying how the nation of Israel is to be holy and sanctified. As
the B'nei Yisroel strictly adhered to the laws regarding these relationships while in Egypt, they were considered holy
and sanctified. This "allowed" Hashem to utter the first expression of redemtion - "V'hotzeisi", "and I will take you
out", as only a nation of sanctified people could be taken out of Egypt to then receive the Torah and Mitzvot.
As we are holy on this night, we can therefore proceed with the sanctification of the night, a step which itself
symbolizes our holiness and sanctification. This first cup which we drink is that of Kiddush. The first expression of
redemption was uttered because of our holiness. As we, the nation of Israel are holy, we were taken out of Egypt,
and given this night, this holiday to sanctify. After we perform this sanctification, we are set to perform the Mitzvos
of the Torah that we were commanded to do on this night. (Rabbi Yehudah Prero)
Have a good Yom Tov!

Sanctification
Through the
Kadesh
By Yoshi
Block, 12th
Grade
Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev 5



ברה תורצואמ
The mitzvah of Sippur
Yetzias Mitzrayim includes the
re-telling of the story of the
exodus as well as the obliga-
tion 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 obliga-
tion to learn the Halachos of Pesach from the answer giv-
en to the Ben Chacham, (which according to the Gaon
was) we must teach him all the Halachos of Pesach, UN-
TIL (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 Ha-
lachos of Pesach. Why don't we tell him the complete re-
sponse 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 him all the laws we
were given. However at the Seder, all 4 sons are repre-
sented 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 in-
volved in Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim: 1) tell-
ing 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 Hala-
chos 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 in-
tended to connect Pesach and Shavuos, as the exodus was
the medium for Kabbalas Hatorah that 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 ques-
tions 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 in-
volve 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 re-
mained 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 our-
selves as if we personally were redeemed from Egypt. We
then say that as far as the Mitzvah of Sippur Yetzias Mitz-
rayim is concerned, the more the merrier: this is the Hala-
cha 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.
NEW
FEATUE!!!
The 4 Sons
From the treasures of the Rav
from the Shiurim of HaRav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik
Weekly D'vrei Torah on the Parsha
(Continued on Page 12)
6
לה ןמ םיאצויה םירבד “ ב
HALACHA
Corner
I. Introduction. Halachic discussions tend to be interest-
ing for one of two reasons. First, the nature of halachic
discourse lends itself to questions that directly affect
behavior. When dealing in the world of the practical,
immediate relevance piques our interest. Second, but
no less significantly, there are halachic discussions
about situations that are unlikely to occur with any
degree of regularity, but are interesting in the moral
dilemma and/or intellectual challenge that they may
present. The nature of the question we will discuss in
this essay fits squarely in the second category, as cur-
rent social conditions would preclude the likelihood of
our dilemma occuring with any level of frequency.
The Sharei Teshuva (Orach Chaim 482:1) discusses a
case of two people who are in a desert or in a jail cell
on Pesach and have only one k’zayis of matzah to
share between them. The mitzvah of eating matzah on
Pesach entails eating a full k’zayis. Splitting the mat-
zah between the two of them would mean that neither
fulfills the mitzvah properly. In this essay, we will ex-
plore the various options that people in this predica-
ment would have. Should they split the matzah be-
cause that is the only equitable way to deal with the
situation? Should each of them try to secure the mat-
zah for himself? Should one of the people volunteer to
give the matzah to the other? Is one even permitted to
give his share of the matzah if that necessarily means
that in so doing he is passing up on a biblical com-
mandment?
It is difficult to discuss this question without relating
to the dispute recorded in Baba Metzia (62a) revolving
around two people walking in a desert with only
enough water for one of them to survive. Ben Petura
thought it is best to split the water because it is better
for both to die than for either person to witness the
death of his friend. Rabi Akiva argued that there is a
biblical requirement to allow your friend to live “with
you”, clearly implying that your own life takes prece-
dence over that of your friend. It would seem that our
issue may relate to whether we would apply the princi-
ple used in regard to one’s physical well being to
one’s spiritual well being. Would Rabi Akiva say that
one should worry about his own spiritual well being
before that of his friend? In this essay we will explore
numerous sources that deal with balancing one’s own
performance of mitzvos with the aid he would provide
others to perform mitzvos.
II. Considering the Issues. In order to arrive at a ha-
lachic conclusion we must first consider numerous
issues. First, it is important to determine if there is any
halachic value in consuming less than the prescribed
amount of matzah. Even if we determine that there is
value we would need to discuss whether having two
people gain this limited value would outweigh the val-
ue of having a single person do the mitzvah properly
at the expense of the other. If we were to determine
that one of them should eat the entire k’zayis we
would then need to determine how to make the deci-
sion as to who should eat the matzah. If the matzah
belongs to one of them it would seem that he would
have the right to eat it, but what if the matzah is own-
erless? Should the more righteous of the two eat it?
Should they fight for it?
A. Is there any value in eating less than a k’zayis of
matzah? Whereas when it comes to the violation of
negative commandments the gemara (Yoma 83b,
Chullin 98a) clearly rules that violation in an amount
smaller than the minimum shiur would still be bibli-
cally prohibited, there is no such rabbinic statement
relating to eating less than the prescribed amount for a
positive mitzvah. The acharonim debate whether a
parallel rule does indeed exist in relation to positive
commandments. The Mishnah L’Melech (Hilchos
Chameit u’Matzah 1:7) and Shevus Yakov (II:18) as-
sume that there is absolutely no value in eating less
than a k’zayis of matzah. The Avnei Nezer (Orach
Chaim:383), however quotes acharonim who believe
that there is a partial fulfillment of a mitzvah when
one consumes less than a k’zayis (though one would
not be able to recite the beracha of “al achilas matzah”
because less than a k’zayis does not qualify as
“achila”).
1. Proofs. Rabbi Asher Weiss (Hagadah shel Pesach
Minchas Asher, Chelek Hashu”t #12) suggests a varie-
ty of proofs to each opinion. What follows is a sam-
pling of sources that may prove whether there is any
value in eating less than a k’zayis of matzah.
a. The Mishnah (Shabbos 137b) states that one who
Two Jews, One K’zayis of Matzah
Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz
Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev 7
HALACHA
Corner
does milah without doing periah has not accomplished
anything. Similarly, one who can only blow the tekiah
sound from a shofar but is unable to blow a teruah
sound should not blow shofar at all. Both of these ha-
lachos seem to indicate that half a mitzvah is no mitz-
vah at all. Similarly, eating a half k’zayis of matzah is
the equivalent of eating no matzah at all.
i. Rav Weiss rejects this proof on the grounds that
there is an important distinction between half a shiur
and half an issur. In both of the above described cases,
the person did not do all of the actions that make up
the mitzvah. When, however, one eats a half k’zayis,
he has done the entire action that entails the mitzvah
but only on half the necessary volume. The proper
equivalent of one the case of the bris and the tekiah
would be one who puts a k’zayis of matzah in his
mouth, chews it, but does not swallow it. Such a half
mitzvah would obviously be worthless.
b. The Maharil Diskin (Teshuva 4) proves that eating
half a k’zayis of matzah has no value from the halacha
that we don’t begin training a child in the mitzvah of
matzah until he can eat the full k’zayis. Apparently
training him to eat a half k’zayis has no value whatso-
ever because even as an adult eating such a small
amount is not even a partial mitzvah.
i. Rav Weiss rejects this proof as well by pointing to
the unique nature of the mitzvah of chinuch. The ge-
mara (Arachin 2b) states that a child who knows how
to shake the lulav should be trained in the mitzvah of
lulav, a child who knows how to protect his tefillin
should be trained in the mitzvah of tefillin and a child
who knows how to wrap himself in a talis should be
trained in the mitzvah of tzitzis. The Brisker Rav
(chiddushim to Arachin) points out that none of the
described activities are critical to the performance of
the mitzvah. One fulfills the mitzvah of daled minim
by merely lifting the lulav, even without waiving the
lulav (Sukkah 42a). One who wears tefillin, even with-
out protecting them properly has fulfilled the mitzvah.
One who wears a tallis, even without any special
wrapping, has fulfilled the mitzvah of tzitzis. Evident-
ly, argues the Brisker Rav, the mitzvah of chinuch
does not begin when a child is old enough to perform
the mitzvah in a minimal way, but only when the child
is old enough to do the mitzvah in the best way possi-
ble. Similarly, even if there is some value in eating a
half k’zayis of matzah the mitzvah of chinuch would
only begin when a child is old enough to eat the entire
k’zayis as the mitzvah is supposed to be performed.

c. The gemara (Yoma 39a) reports that during the for-
ty years of Shimon Hatzadik’s reign as the kohen gad-
ol, the lechem hapanim benefited from great blessings.
Any kohein who would receive a k’zayis of the
lechem hapanim would be fully satiated. After Shimon
Hatzadik’s death the beracha ceased and people would
receive only a tiny amount of bread from the lechem
hapanim (less than a k’zayis). When this began to oc-
cur with regularity, the modest kohannim would de-
cline their portions in the lechem hapanim. The Ritva
(ad loc.) explains that these modes kohanim saw no
value in eating less than a k’zayis of lechem hapanim
since the mitzvah required that a k’zayis be eaten. The
Tosafos Yeshanim (ad loc.), however, writes that they
declined their portions because eating less than a k’za-
yis does not entail “the complete mitzvah”. The impli-
cation of Tosafos Yeshanim is that there is some value
in even less than a k’zayis of a mitzvah. Perhaps,
whether one gains anything by eating less than a k’za-
yis of matzah is subject to the dispute between the Rit-
va and Tosafos Yeshanim.
i. Rav Weiss points out, however, that the comparison
between lechem hapanim and matzah may not be com-
pletely accurate. Whereas the mitzvah of eating mat-
zah consists exclusively of each individual consuming
a k’zayis of matzah, the mitzvah of eating the lechem
hapanim involves an additional obligation to ensure
that all of the lechem hapanim is consumed. Perhaps
the partial mitzvah in eating a very small amount of
the lechem hapanim that the Tosafos Yeshanim refers
to is not the mitvah of eating lechem hapanim (which
would require a k’zayis), but the mitzvah of making
sure that the bread becomes consumed (which has no
given shiur). [The Beis Halevi uses a similar idea to
explain an unusual gemara.The gemara in Nazir 23a
states that although achilas gassah is generally not
considered to be eating (as stated in Yoma 80b), when
one eats his korban pesach as an achilas gassah he has
done a partial mitzvah. The Beis Halevi (III:52:3) ex-
plains that normally the mitzvah of eating korbanos
does not entail an obligation on the individual to eat,
(Continued on page 8)
Contnued
8
לה ןמ םיאצויה םירבד “ ב
HALACHA
Corner
but an obligation to ensure that the korban gets eaten.
The korban pesach in unique in that there is a dual ob-
ligation – for the individual to eat and for the korban
to get eaten. When one eats the korban as an achilah
gassah he has not fulfilled his obligation to eat, but has
fulfilled the requirement to make sure the korban gets
eaten. (see Tosafos in Nazir for a different explana-
tion)]
2. The issue of whether there is any value in eating
less than a k’zayis of matzah (or any mitzvah of eat-
ing) may depend on how we understand the prohibi-
tion of eating less than a k’zayis of a prohibited food
(chatzi shiur assur min hatorah – Yoma 83b, Chullin
98a). The gemara (Yoma 74a) explains the reason that
it is prohibited to eat less than a k’zayis is that it is
“chazi l’itztarufi” (can be combined with more to
make up the complete amount). There are three possi-
ble ways to understand this concept, each has an im-
pact on whether we would assume there is value in
eating less than a k’zayis of matzah:
a. The Tzlach (Pesachim 47a and in Noda B’Yehuda
Tinyana Orach Chaim #53) understands that the prob-
lem with eating less than a k’zayis of a prohibited food
is that one may easily eat a little bit more and violate
the prohibition. The gemara employs a separate source
to teach the prohibition of eating a tiny amount of cha-
meitz and does not rely on the general rule that a chazi
shiur is prohibited because had we relied on the gen-
eral rule of chatzi shiur, if one were to commence eat-
ing chameitz at the very end of Pesach, not leaving
himself enough time to finish eating a full k’zayis be-
fore Pesach ends, he would be exempt. Only once we
have a separate source to teach that even the smallest
amount of chameitz is prohibited, do we know that
such last minute eating would be prohibited. The clear
assumption of the Tzlach is that eating a chatzi shiur is
only prohibited in as much as it can lead you to eat the
full shiur. There is no inherent problem with a chatzi
shiur. Applying this logic to mitzvos it would seem
that just as there is no inherent problem with eating
less than the shiur of a prohibition, there is no inherent
value in eating less than a shiur of a mitzvah.
b. The Yad Shaul (Hilchos Shvuos 234) cites the
Rashba to be in disagreement with the understanding
of the Tzlach. In the Rashba’s view it is illogical for
the entire prohibition to only begin in the last drop that
completes the k’zayis. It must be that the characteris-
tics of prohibition are there all along, but the prohibi-
tion is only strong enough to receive a punishment for
it when the amount reaches a full k’zayis. In the Rash-
ba’s view eating a small amount of a prohibited item is
a partial prohibition. Similarly, one can surmise, eat-
ing a small amount of matzah (or any other mitzvah of
eating) would be considered a partial mitzvah.
B. Even if there is value in eating a chatzi shiur, is it
better for both people to eat the smaller amount of for
one to eath the full amount? Even if we assume that
there is some value in eating a half k’zayis of matzah,
we have still not solved our dilemma. Perhaps eating
half a k’zayis is valuable, but the value of having one
person eat a full k’zayis outweighs the limited value of
having two people eat a half k’zayis each. The Ran
(Yoma 83) discusses the case of a dangerously ill pa-
tient who needs to eat meat on shabbos in order to
live, only there is no slaughtered kosher meat availa-
ble. The options are to either feed him non kosher
meat or to slaughter an animal on shabbos in order to
feed him kosher meat. The Ran suggests that although
the prohibition of slaughtering on shabbos is far great-
er than the prohibition of eating non-kosher food,
there may be reason to argue that it is best to slaughter
the animal: If the man were to eat the non-kosher
meat, he would violate a separate prohibition with
each k’zayis that he consumes. If, however, we were
to slaughter the animal, it would involve only the one
time prohibition of slaughtering the animal. As such,
the Ran suggests that if the patient will need to eat a
lot of meat it is best for him to have an animal slaugh-
tered instead of eating non-kosher meat. The obvious
implication of the Ran is that a greater quantity of a
lesser prohibition can outweigh a smaller quantity of a
greater prohibition. If one were to apply the same log-
ic to mitzvos, we might conclude that a greater quanti-
ty of smaller mitzvos would be more valuable than a
lesser quantity of greater mitzvos. Perhaps one may
then argue that having two people eat less than a k’za-
yis is better than to have a single person eat a full
k’zayis.
1. Upon further analysis, however, it becomes clear
that the Ran’s comment does not help us resolve our
issue. Even if multiple lesser mitzvos would outweigh
(Continued on page 9)
Contnued
Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev 9
HALACHA
Corner
one larger mitzvah, it may be argued that this would
only apply to complete smaller mitzvos. All would
agree that even a single complete mitzvah would out-
weigh multiple partial mitzvos. Eating a half k’zayis
of matzah is not a smaller mitzvah, but a partial mitz-
vah. It would therefore seem clear that the best ap-
proach is to have one person eat the entire k’zayis, ra-
ther than splitting it amongst the two people.
C. Is one permitted (or obligated) to give up his half
zayis to allow his friend to eat the full zayis? If we
were to assume that there is absolutely no value in eat-
ing a half k’zayis of matzah, there is no doubt that one
is permitted to give his half k’zayis away in order to
enable somebody else to fulfill the mitzvah with a full
k’zayis. If, however, we assume that eating a half
k’zayis is halachically meaningful the question be-
comes whether one can pass up on a halachically valu-
able action in order to enable somebody else to do a
mitzvah.
1. A possible precedent to provide us with direction
may be found in the Mishnah Berurah (671:6) who
rules that if one has enough oil to light the most mehu-
dar amount of candles throughout Chanukah, but his
friend has no oil at all, it is best to sacrifice one’s own
hiddur in order to provide his friend with the ability to
do the mitzvah. Our case, however, differs in a very
fundamental way. By Ner Chanukah, at the end of the
day both people will have fulfilled the mitzvah and the
first person will have only sacrificed a hiddur. In our
case, the man who gives up the k’zayis of matzah is
left with nothing at all.
2. Perhaps another possible source to clarify our issue
is the discussion amongst the Rishonim relating to a
seeming contradiction between two passages in the
Gemara. On the one hand, the Gemara (Shabbos 4a)
states that if a person disobeyed the halacha and at-
tached his dough to the walls of the oven on shabbos,
another person is not obligated to remove the bread
from the walls (in violation of a rabbinic prohibition)
in order to save the original sinner from violating bak-
ing on shabbos. The reason we do not allow anybody
to remove the dough is that we would never ask a per-
son to violate a smaller prohibition in order to save
another person from a more major prohibition. On the
other hand the gemara (Eruvin 32b) rules that if one
furnished an am ha’aretz with untithed produce, he
may tithe the produce from other produce that is not
near the original produce, in violation of the rabbinic
prohibition of tithing “shelo min hamukaf” (from pro-
duce that is not adjacent to the untithed produce). The
gemara explains that we prefer the educated Jew vio-
late the lesser prohibition (of separating “shelo min
hamukaf”) rather than allow the am ha’aretz to violate
a greater prohibition (eating untithed produce). The
two passages seem to blatantly contradict each other.
Should one sacrifice his own spiritual well being in
the interest of helping to enhance his friend’s spiritual
well being? How we resolve this contradiction may be
instructive for our case of personal sacrifice of a mitz-
vah in order to enable somebody else to do a mitzvah.

a. Tosafos (Shabbos 4a) initially resolves the contra-
diction by suggesting that one would only sacrifice his
own religious obligations in order to help another per-
son when he is responsible for his friend’s possible
pitfall (as in the case of furnishing one’s friend with
untithed produce). When one is not at fault for his
friend’s problem (as in the case of the dough in the
oven) there is no reason for one to violate any prohibi-
tion to save his friend. It would seem that if we were
to accept this answer, in our case one should not sacri-
fice his own partial mitzvah of eating a half k’zayis in
order to aid his friend in the mitzvah of eating a full
k’zayis because neither person is responsible for his
friend’s situation.
b. Tosafos further resolves the contradiction by distin-
guishing between a case where one is saving his friend
from violating a prohibition that he had brought upon
himself with his own negligence (like the case in
Shabbos where the person has only himself to blame
for putting the dough on the wall), and a case where
one is saving his friend from a prohibition that the
friend did not bring upon himself (like in the case of
the untithed produce). It would seem that if we were to
accept this answer one should sacrifice his own half
k’zayis of matzah in order to enable his friend to eat a
full k’zayis because the friend’s failure to eat a full
k’zayis was not brought on by his own negligence.
c. The Ritva suggests that the distinction may lie in the
relative severity of the prohibition. When the friend
will only be obligated a korban (as in the case of the
(Continued on page 10)
Contnued
10
לה ןמ םיאצויה םירבד “ ב
HALACHA
Corner
dough in the oven) there is no need to violate a prohi-
bition to save the friend. When, however, the friend is
in danger of a violation that deserves the death penalty
(such as eating untithed produce) it is worth violating
a smaller prohibition to save him. It would seem that if
accept this answer, one should not give up his half
k’zayis as he is not saving his friend from a violation
that carries a serious penalty.
d. The Ritva further answers that one would never be
obligated to violate a prohibition in order to save his
friend from a more sever violation, but one is permit-
ted to do so. If we were to accept this answer, one may
but is not obligated to give up his own half k’zayis in
order to enable his friend to eat a full k’zayis.
i. One may argue that the above four approaches have
no relevance to our case. In the two passages in ques-
tion (Shabbos 4a, Eruvin 32b), the personal sacrifice
one would make is an actual prohibition. In our case,
the personal sacrifice isn’t even a full mitzvah, and
one would therefore be encouraged to sacrifice his
partial shell of a mitzvah in order to enable his friend
to do a genuine complete mitzvah.
D. Should the mitzvah go to whoever can perform it
better? Now that we have concluded that it is best for
one person to eat the entire k’zayis, the question arises
as to how to determine who should have the oppor-
tunity to do the mitzvah. The Gemara (Kiddushin 29b)
states that if one is able to send his son to learn or can
learn himself, but cannot do both, it is best for the per-
son to learn himself. If, however the son has a sharper
mind, it is best to have his son learn instead of him.
The obvious implication of the gemara is that whoever
can perform the mitzvah better should be the one who
is awarded with the chance to do the mitzvah. Perhaps
one may suggest that whichever person is more capa-
ble of fulfilling the mitzvah of matzah in a more com-
plete way should perform the mitzvah. The difficulty
with this comparison is in determining how one can be
said to perform the mitzvah of matzah in a better way.
Does a heightened sense of kavanah qualify one as
more capable of fulfilling the mitzvah? Whereas the
ability of the student to become fluent in the infor-
mation is part of the basic mitzvah of learning torah,
extra kavanos are not critical in the fulfillment of the
mitzvah of matzah. Perhaps one who is able to eat the
full k’zayis in the shorter shiur of k’dei achilas pras
should be awarded with the mitzvah. The Beis Yehuda
(#58) suggests that the case of torah learning is differ-
ent in that he who supports others in torah receives a
portion of the credit for the mitzvah (similar to Yisa-
char and Zevulun, or women who support their hus-
band’s learning – see Sotah 21a).
There may be reason to argue that the mitzvah should
be awarded to the man of greater stature. The Tevuos
Shor (28:14) points out that there is a longstanding
custom of “honoring” a rabbi with the mitzvah of cov-
ering the blood after shechitah. This “honor” seems to
be in direct violation of the gemara’s requirement
(Kidushin 41a) to do a mitzvah yourself rather than
through a messenger. The Tevuos Shor explains that
the reason one should not leave his mitzvos for a
shaliach to do is that doing so insults the mitzvah.
When, however one tries to save the mitzvah for
somebody greater than himself to perform, it is a great
honor to the mitzvah. This may be the source of the
custom for people to provide the nicest available esrog
to the rabbi, as they are honoring not only the rabbi,
but the mitzvah itself by saving it for the most honora-
ble person.
The Beis Yehuda (18th century, #58) writes that the
Mishnah (Zevachim 89a) clearly rules that when one
is more holy than his friend, it takes precedence. Simi-
larly it makes sense to allow the more holy of the two
Jews to perform the mitzvah of eating the full k’zayis
of matzah. Aside from the practical difficulty of deter-
mining which person is “holier”, the application of the
Mishnah seems completely inaccurate. The Mishnah
does not speak of two people, one of who is holier
than his friend, but of two mitzvos one of which has a
higher level of sanctity. Furthermore, the Mishnah
does not speak of sacrificing one mitzvah in favor of
another, but of allowing one mitzvah to precede the
other (with both mitzvos ultimately being performed).
One can only assume that this suggestion of the Beis
Yehuda was meant as nothing more than a manner of
speech, but was never meant as an actual proof.
III. The Practical Opinions.
A. The Beis Yehuda rules that it is best for each to try
to get the entire mitzvah for himself. Since the require-
ment to eat matzah is a personal obligation, and not a
goal oriented mitzvah (ensuring that the matzah get
(Continued on page 11)
Contnued
Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev 11
HALACHA
Corner
eaten) each person should make every effort to be the
one who fulfills the mitzvah. Whichever one is strong-
er and able to convince the other to give him the entire
k’zayis should do so. May the best man win!
B. The Sha’arei Teshuva (482:1) rejects the Beis Ye-
huda’s approach on the grounds that if one has to force
his friend to give up his half k’zayis, the matzah that
he is left with is stolen matzah which cannot be used
for the mitzvah. The only way that the Beis Yehuda’s
approach is feasible is when the k’zayis of matzah was
ownerless to begin with. In a case where the item is
ownerless the Sharei Teshuva would agree that each
person should try to take the entire k’zayis for himself.
The logic is that if one were permitted to take the last
available water in a desert because his own life takes
precedence over his friend’s life, one would certainly
be allowed to put his own mitzvah needs in front of
his friend’s mitzvah needs. In fact, no less a figure
than Yakov Avinu did whatever was in his power to
take an available mitzvah (the blessings of the
firstborn) while it was available. The Sharei Teshuva
derives from the story of Yakov that while one cannot
take a mitzvah away from his friend, he may certainly
resort to any sort of trickery to obtain the rights to a
mitzvah that is not yet claimed.
C. The Sharei Teshuva further argues that the best ap-
proach is to make a simple raffle to determine who
gets the k’zayis. Even if one were to believe that eat-
ing a half k’zayis has some value, there is no doubt
that the value of one person doing the mitzvah proper-
ly far outweighs whatever value there is in each per-
son doing the mitzvah partially. As far as the concern
that it is prohibited to “give up” your own partial mitz-
vah in the interest of your friend, the Sharei Teshuva
argues that when you leave it up to a raffle you are not
giving anything up willingly, but committing to abide
by the random outcome.
D. The Kesav Sofer (Orach Chaim #96) takes what
can safely be described as the most creative approach
to this question. After proving at length that the prima-
ry mitzvah of eating matzah is not in the digestion of a
k’zayis of matzah, but in the swallowing of a k’zayis
of matzah, he suggests the following solution: If each
person were to take a half k’zayis, chew it, regurgitate
it, and eat it again, he will have eaten a full k’zayis of
matzah. We find precedent for this idea in the gemara
(Chulin 103b) which states that if a person eats a half
k’zayis of forbidden food, regurgitates it and eat it
again, he will be culpable as if he has eaten a full k’za-
yis (provided that the prohibition is in the swallowing
and not the digesting). If this is true of violations of
issurim it should be equally true of the performance of
mitzvos. The only proviso that the Kesav Sofer adds is
that one cannot eat a half k’zayis that another person
has regurgitated because it would be completely dis-
gusting to him and therefore inadequate to fulfill the
mitzvah with it. The Kesav Sofer acknowledges that
his solution is not ideal (because neither person will be
able to eat the entire k’zayis at one time, neither will
be able to digest the k’zayis, one runs the risk of not
being able to regurgitate the matzah and after all it is a
bit disgusting) but is the best of the available options.
E. Rav Asher Weiss (Hagada Shel Pesach Minchas
Asher Teshuva #12) writes that even if one person is
in possession of the entire k’zayis, it is best to give it
to his friend to fulfill the mitzvah. Rav Weiss argues
that passing up on the k’zayis in this case is not the
same as neglecting a mitzvah because in any case only
one person will be able to do the mitzvah. Why should
the person holding the matzah be more entitled to per-
form the mitzvah than the person not holding the mat-
zah. Rav Weiss argues that a spirit of generosity when
it comes to mitzvos is also a positive thing and should
be encouraged.
IV. Conclusion. The variety of halachic opinions and
considerations involved in what seems like the sim-
plest of halachic questions demonstrates the complexi-
ty and beauty of the halachic process. The variety of
opinions we have explored should serve to highlight
for us the importance of caring for the spiritual well
being of others, the value of performing mitzvos our-
selves in the proper way, and the natural struggle in
making difficult spiritual choices as we try to serve
our Creator. It is our hope that through the study of the
underlying principles of halacha we should always
merit to perform mitzvos and help others perform
mitzvos in the most ideal way possible.

Have Chag Kasher V’Sameach!
Contnued
12
לה ןמ םיאצויה םירבד “ ב
The first passage we recite in דיגמ, אינע אמחל אה, seems to make an irrelevant declaration regarding the הצמ: the
invitation of poor people to partake in its eating. Don’t we have a הוצמ to assist and support the underprivileged on all םימוי
םיבוט ? After all, the Rambam explicitly states that we need to take special care of the poor on בוט םוי, and there is even
a קוספ in האר תשרפ which specifies not only the poor, but also others, רשא הנמלאהו םותיהו רגהו ... התא ,ךיקולא 'ה ינפל תחמשו
םירבד( ".... ךברקב 11:11 ) " – “And you shall rejoice (on the holiday), before Hashem your G-d, you … and the stranger and
the orphan and the widow who are in your midst….” With this in mind, why is it that we only present this invitation only on
Pesach, but not on Shavuos or Sukkos?
Rav Zalman Sorotzkin answers this question by directing our attention to the very next קוספ ( 11:11 ) : דבע יכ תרכזו"
"הלאה םיקוחה תא תישעו תרמשו םירצמב תייה - “You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and you shall observe and
perform these laws.” It is for this reason that the Torah stipulates not to overlook and disregard the less privileged who live
amid us: we can identify with their state of depravity, based on our history. As we are humbled by the remembrance of our
history, we become naturally inclined against superiority and the maltreatment of others. True, the other םיבוט םימוי are to
some extent related to our Exodus, but Pesach is the only one that zooms in on that motif, as it is known as "וניתוריח ןמז", the
time of our freedom, as opposed to Shavuos, ןתמ ןמז" "וניתרות , the time of the giving of the Torah, and Sukkos, "וניתחמש ןמז",
the time of our rejoicing. Thus it is imperative that specifically on this גח , when we reminisce about the miracle of our
redemption from Egyptian bondage, that we remember the poor and unfortunate among us.
There is a possible hint to the בויח of tending the poor better than the way we treat ourselves, in 'ו םיקוספ ג"י קרפ תומש -
'ז. The קוספ says, ".... םימיה תעבש תא לכאי תוצמ .'הל גח יעיבשח םויבו תצמ לכאת םימי תעבש" – “For a seven-day period shall you eat
matzos, and on the seventh day there shall be a festival to Hashem. Maztos shall be eaten throughout the seven-day period;
….” In the first קוספ, written as a direct commandment for us to eat matzos, the word is "תצמ", written lacking a "ו",
implying that when involving ourselves in our food, our sustenance, we can conserve. In the second קוספ, on the other hand,
when just stating a relative and generic command (implying that it is not referring to our eating, rather the eating of others),
the word is written "תוצמ", with a "ו", indicating that when we are concerned about the welfare of others, we do not
conserve. Hence we see from the םיקוספ that there is a bigger emphasis to be concerned about םיינע than on the concern for
ourselves.
Have an awesome and inspiring Pesach!
What Do The םיינע Have To Do With It?
By Yaakov Feldstein, 12th Grade, Editor-in-Chief 2009-2011
We ask a follow-up question on this: True, it’s sad what happened to this person, but do we really care that much that we obli-
gate people to cover their knives by benching? The answer is that yes, this fellow was quite passionate about this, but we should be pas-
sionate as well; we shouldn’t be indifferent, we should also care.
Have a great Yom Tov!
(Avrumi Blisko—Continued from page 1)
The section of the 4 sons describes the Halacha that we must relate and teach the Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim accord-
ing 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 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.
Have a good Yom Tov!
(MeOtzros HaRav—Continued from page 5)
Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev 13
The Order Of Maggid
By Yitzie Scheinman, 10th Grade, Layout Editor
At first glance, the different paragraphs of Mag-
gid and the rest of the Haggada seem to be completely
random. They seem to be just a bunch of nonspecific
paragraphs having to do with Pesach, assembled in no
meaningful order.
However, says the Malbim, this is not true. A
deeper look at what each paragraph is saying will show
you that the order of paragraphs was intentional and has
great meaning. Says the Malbim, take the pasuk that
the Seder is based around: “V’higadita L’vincha Bayom
Hahu Leimor, Ba’avur Zeh Assah Hash-m Li B’tzeisi
Mimitzrayim.” If you separate the pasuk into six parts,
you can see that each part, in order, is reflected in six
groups of paragraphs in the Maggid:
V’higadita L’vincha – this is reflected in the
eight paragraphs beginning with Avadim Hayinu and
ending with Ma’aseh B’rabbi Eliezer and the Four
Sons. These paragraphs discuss the reason why we say
over the story of Yetzias Mitzrayim, as opposed to ac-
tually beginning the telling of the story.
Bayom Hahu – this is reflected in the paragraph
of Yachol Me’rosh Chodesh. This paragraph discusses
the reason that we have the Seder specifically on the
15
th
of Nissan, rather than Rosh Chodesh.
Leimor – this is reflected in the paragraphs of
the pesukim. These paragraphs are the part of Maggid
where we actually tell over the story of Pesach by ex-
plaining each part of each pasuk in depth.
Ba’avur Zeh – this is reflected in the paragraphs
of R’ Gamliel and Pesach, Matzah, and Maror. R’
Gamliel explains this part of the pasuk to mean “Zeh
Ba’avur…” – this is what we do because of what hap-
pened when Hash-m took us out of Mitzrayim, referring
to these paragraphs of Pesach, Matzah, and Maror.
Assah Hash-m Li – this is reflected in the para-
graph of B’chol Dor Va’dor. This paragraph discusses
the chiyuv of every single person to feel as if they just
left Mitzrayim, which we learn from the use of the
word “Li” in this part of the pasuk.
B’tzeisi Mimitzrayim – this is reflected in the
paragraphs of Hallel, beginning with L’fichach. These
paragraphs discuss, in detail, and praise the specific
miracles that Hash-m did when taking us out of Mi-
trayim, highlighted in the paragraph of B’tzeis Yisrael
Mimitzrayim.
The Malbim explains that by understanding the
meaning of the order of Maggid, it will help us better
understand the mitzvos of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim
and the entire Seder.

Have an amazing Yom Tov!
PESACH ZMANIM 5772
Last Time for Eating Chametz: 10:24 am
Last Time for Burning Chametz: 11:40 am
Yom Tov Day2 Candle Lighting: 8:08 pm
Yom Tov Day 2 Latest עמש תאירק: 9:42 am
Yom Tov Day 7 Candle Lighting: 7:13 pm
Yom Tov Day 7 Latest עמש תאירק: 9:37 am
Yom Tov Day 8 Candle Lighting: 7:14 pm
Yom Tov Day 8 Latest עמש תאירק: 9:36 am
Yom Tov/Shabbos Ends: 8:16 pm
14
לה ןמ םיאצויה םירבד “ ב
By Yonatan Mehlman, 12th Grade,
Editor of Student Articles
דיגמ
There is a well-known halacha on Pesach which says
that one must recite maggid over the second cup of wine
(Rambam Chometz U’Matzoh 7:1). After one completes the
maggid section of the hagadah, he makes the brachah of
“Asher Ga’alnu” followed by a brachah on wine. The pur-
pose of saying maggid over wine is because it is written in a
pasuk, “Zachor et hayom hazeh asher yatzatem me Mitz-
rayim” (Shemos 13:3) and it is also written, “Zachor et yom
hashabbos” (Shemos 20:8). The Gemara makes a comparison
saying, just like it says “Zachor” by Shabbos, which is ful-
filled by verbally making kiddush over wine, in a like manner
we make kiddush over wine on Yom Tov (Pesachim 106).
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitich, based upon the Rambam
(Rambam 7:10) writes that based on this limud we also learn
that the obligation of the mitzvah of maggid must also be
over a cup of wine.
The question posed before Rav Moshe Soloveitchik
was: if one spilled the wine before making the bracha of Ash-
er Ga’alnu, but after reciting the entire maggid, does this per-
son need to repeat the maggid over a new cup of wine?
There are two ways one can base his answer: either
that one must say maggid over a cup of wine, regardless of
whether he drinks that cup specifically, and therefore he need
not repeat the haggadah if he spilled that cup; or that the cup
one says maggid over is the cup he must drink. Perhaps, if
one does not drink the cup he said maggid over, he has not
fulfilled the mitzvah of Sipur Yetziat Metzrayim.
Rav Moshe Soloveitchik answered that one must re-
fill the cup and repeat certain parts of the hagadah, i.e.
“Avadim Hayinu” until “Detzach”, and “Raban Gamliel
says…” to “Ga’al Yisrael (Asher Ga’alnu).” Following this
repetition, he will make the bracha on the second cup of
wine. The repetition of this part of the hagadah is required because it is the true essence of Sipur Yetziat Metzrayim, as em-
phasized by the Rambam, and therefore must be said over the cup of wine that he is drinking.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach writes in his safer Halichot Shlomo (9:17) that if one did not have any wine for the se-
der, but he received wine after he completed the mitzvot of the night, he should make a bracha and drink four cups in a row
and he would be yotzeh all the mizvot of the seder. From the fact that Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach does not force this person
to repeat maggid over the newly presented cup of wine, one can infer that the maggid he had already recited without a cup of
wine was not lacking. It could also imply that the second cup that he drinks is still defined as the cup typically ascribed to
maggid, even in the absence of its recitation at the time of drinking.
Have a Chag Sameach!!

Keeping the
Flame Alive
By Jesse Steinmetz,
11th Grade
In Parshas Tzav, we learn that there needs to be a
continual flame on the mizbeach. The Talmud Yerushalmi
interprets the word “continual,” as meaning “even on Shab-
bat; continual includes even in a state of impurity.” It is of-
ten a cited principle that all forms and aspects of the services
of the physical mishkan and mikdash also signify and relate
to the spiritual mishkan and mikdash in every Jew. The miz-
beach signifies the heart of man. Just as in the physical
sanctuary there was an outside mizbeach as well as an inside
mizbeach, so too there is an external aspect of the heart and
an inner aspect of the heart. The commandment, “a continu-
al fire shall blaze upon the alter” refers to the external alter.
In the spiritual sense this means that there must be visible
ecstasy in the external aspect of the heart: the heart must
burn with longing for divinity.
Shabbat stands for rest, a separation from the mun-
dane. This is why it entails a prohibition against the work of
weekdays. In terms of a man’s soul, this means apprehen-
sion. As one apprehends the exhibition of the divine light,
one is removed from the mundane. Now this may lead one
to think that by virtue of maintaining mental apprehension,
which transcends emotional involvement, he is not in need
of “fire”. Thus, he is told “A continual fire…it shall not be
extinguished – even on Shabbat.”
At the other extreme is the person who is so far re-
moved he thinks himself to be removed from any sort of
relationship with holiness. He is told, “It shall not be extin-
guished – even in a state of impurity.” Disregard your pre-
sent state and see to it that it shall not be extinguished. Keep
fanning the continual fire to prevent it from going out.
Have a great Pesach!
Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev 15
0 5772
This Week in
Jewish History
Collected By
Benjamin Watman,
11th Grade
Taken from http://tannentorah.com
15 Nissan
 Sara was brought to the house of Par'o. G-d made a covenant
with Avraham. The angels appeared to inform Avraham that a
son would be born to Sara. Birth of Yitzchak. Yitzchak sum-
moned Eisav and requested that he prepare a tasty meal for
him and receive his blessing. [This tradition was apparently
based on the wording of Isaac's blessing: "May G-d give you
of the dew of heaven". The Talmud fixed Nisan 15 as the be-
ginning of the harvest season and the end of the rainy season.
Thereafter rain is harmful but dew is beneficial.
 Moses saw the burning bush.
 The Egyptian first-born were slain.
First day of Pesach.
 The beginning of the Exodus.
 The Assyrian army of Sancherev, which had threatened Jerusa-
lem, was destroyed.
 Yahrzeit of Job.
 Vashti was executed by order of Achashveirosh.
 Esther appeared before Achashveirosh to plead for the Jews.
 The defenders of Masada committed suicide, 73 C.E.
 The last resistance to the Roman conquest of Eretz Yisrael
came to an end.
 An order to seize of all Portuguese Jewish children, ages 4-14
for forced conversion, 1497.
The Vilna Gaon was born, 1720.
16 Nissan
Birth of Levi, third son of Yaakov.
 Jews had crossed the Jordan into Eretz Yisrael. The Omer was
offered for the first time by the Jews in Eretz Yisrael.
 King Saul's seven sons were killed.
Chizkiyahu HaMelech completed the rededication of the Beit
HaMikdash.
 Haman was hanged. Mordecai was appointed chief minister to
replace Haman.
 The alleged murder of William of Norwich, led to the first
charge of ritual murder against Jews in the Middle Ages. The tim-
ing of ritual libels with Pesach is no coincidence.
 Arabs killed and wounded many Jews in Jerusalem, 1920.
17 Nissan
 Solomon Etting, prominent businessman of Lancaster, Pa., was
the first native American Jew to receive a limited authorization to
function as a shohet, 1782. [The early American Jewish communi-
ty, though mainly traditional, was too small to train its own reli-
gious functionaries and too distant to attract European scholars.]
18 Nissan
 Par'o was informed that the Jews had escaped.
 A number of London Jews suffered martyrdom following ritu-
al charges, 1279.
 Purim of the Bomb was celebrated by the Jews of Fossano,
south of the Alps, to commemorate their escape from massacre,
1796.
19 Nissan
 Par'o set out in pursuit of the Jews.
 Adolf Hitler made his first appearance on the anniversary of
the day on which the first anti-Semite in Jewish history set out in
pursuit of the Jewish people.
 Yahrzeit of Rabbi Menahem Zemba, HY"D. He was killed in
the Warsaw ghetto, 1943.
 Yahrzeit of Rabbi Meir Bar-Ilan, leader of Mizrachi, scholar
and author, 1949.
20 Nissan
 Par'o and his pursing army caught up with the Jews encamped
at Pi-HaChirot by the sea.
 Yahrzeit of Rav Hai Gaon, the last of the geonim of Pumpedi-
ta, 1038. [The death of Rav Hai Gaon brought to a close the glori-
ous epoch of Babylonian Jewry. For more than eight centuries Bab-
ylonia was the center of Jewish culture and creative scholarship. Its
leaders provided the guidance and direction of Jewish religious
development throughout the world. After the decline of Babylonian
Jewry, the center of Jewish culture shifted in succeeding stages to
North Africa, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Turkish Empire,
and Eastern Europe. The post-Nazi period has witnessed the emer-
gence of two new centers of Jewish learning - Israel and the United
States.]
21 Nissan
 Jacob left Laban's home to return to Eretz Yisrael.
 Par'o's decree against Jewish male infants was canceled.
 Jews crossed the Red Sea. Moshe and the people of Israel sang
the Shira.
22 Nissan
Yehoshua began his march around Yericho. The encirclement of
Yericho, which led to its destruction within seven days, constituted
the first Jewish military action in ancient Eretz Yisrael.
16
לה ןמ םיאצויה םירבד “ ב
PUBLICATION
STAFF


Editors in Chief
Avrumi Blisko
Dani Scheinman

Associate Editors
Yitzie Scheinman
Benjamin Watman
layout editors
Shmuli Gutenmacher
rabbinic articles
Yonatan Mehlman
student articles

Production Staff
Andrew Mermelstein
director of production
Josh Wein
Nisan Basalilov
Jeremy Beninfeld
production staff

םירפוס/Authors
Daniel Aharon
Benny Aivazi
Yonatan Aivazi
David Beer
Yoshi Block
Elly Deutsch
Yehuda Fogel
Yitzchak Ginsberg
Ari Gutenmacher
Eli Guttman
Yaakov Hagler
Ian Hawk
Aryeh Helfgott
Yehuda Inslicht
Aaron Joseph
Yoni Kadish
David Lauer
Andrew Levine
Eli Lonner
Moshe Lonner
Zev Miller
Yosef Naiman
Gavi Nelson
Johnny Perlman
Avi Porter
Shmulie Reichman
Moishy Rothman
Aaron Rubel
Ariel Sacknovitz
Yigal Saperstien
Avrumi Schonbrun
Yoel Schreier
Alex Selesny
Donny Steinberg
Jesse Steinmetz
Jeremy Teichman
David Weitzman
Matanya Yehonatan

Maggid of DRS
Marc Eichenbaum

Menahel
Rabbi Y. Kaminetsky

Faculty Advisors
Rabbi E. Brazil
Rabbi M. Erlbaum
Rabbi A. Lebowitz

The DRS Yeshiva High School For Boys
700 Ibsen Street, Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 295-7700 - Fax: (516) 295-4790
a:n ¡n n·×xi·n n·:a~
Weekly Torah Publication of the DRS Yeshiva High School

STORIES OF GREATNESS
TOLD OVER BY: MARC EICHENBAUM
On Pesach we don't just celebrate our ances-
tors' salvation from Egypt. We also celebrate
God's salvation in every generation. This sto-
ry, A Passover Melody, shows God's divine
intervention in the horrors of the Holocaust.
Found in Hasidic Tales of the Holocaust by
Yaffa Eliach.
Rains had extinguished the flames of
the barn in Gardelegen, Germany, where the
1,016 slave laborers perished. When the rains
stopped, the survivors from the burning barn,
other inmates and POW's, were loaded on
trucks guarded by Germans and gendarmes,
and driven to the woods to be shot. The
woods were a few kilometers from camp. The
air smelled fresh and clean. The young broth-
er and his cousin were on one of the trucks.
"I am bored," said one of the guards.
"Hey, you Jew boy, sing for me one of your
church songs and hymns!" The cousin, a
young Hasid, had a very beautiful voice.
It was April 15, 1945, only five days
after the holiday of Passover. The young lad
started to sing a song from the Passover Hag-
gadah, "Vehi she amdah la-avoteinu."
The melody was a beautiful one. Soon
the other slave laborers of various nationali-
ties and the guards joined in the singing. The
gentle spring wind carried the song to the oth-
er trucks in the death convoy and they, too,
hummed the melody.
As they approached the forest, the
German guard stopped the singing. "Tell me
the meaning of your song; translate it for me."
The Hasidic lad translated : "And this it is
which has succored our ancestors and us. For
it was not one alone who rose against us to
annihilate us, but in every generation there are
those who rise against us to annihilate us. But
the Holy One, blessed be He, ever saves us
from their hand."
When the boy concluded the transla-
tion, the German burst into a wild, mosking
laughter. "Let's see how your God will save
you from my hands."
"I am still alive, but I am not afraid to
die," replied the lad.
They reached a clearing in the forest.
In groups of six, they were taken to a ravine
in the forest and shot. The two cousins were
among the last group. On the face of the Ger-
man guard was an expression of triumph as
the young lads were led to their death.
Suddenly, a motorcycle arrived with
two high-ranking German officials. They or-
dered all remaining prisoners to be taken back
to camp. Gardelegen had just surrendered to
the American Army.
(Continued on page 3)

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful