Siman 472

Even though on Shabbat and Yom Tov one adds from the profane to the holy, and is able to recite Kiddush and eat while it is still day, nevertheless on the night of Pesach it is not so, for it is written: "And they shall eat the meat on this night" – that we require actual night. And matzah is compared to the Pesach offering (Tur), as it is written: "with matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it." And this is what we learned in the Mishnah of "Arvei Pesachim," that one should not eat until it grows dark. That is to say: not like every Erev Shabbat and Erev Yom Tov (Tosafot ibid.). And so we learned in the Tosefta, that the Pesach offering, matzah, and maror – their mitzvah is from when it grows dark. Therefore, also the cup of Kiddush, which is one of the four cups, and also the eating of other vegetables, and other changes that we perform so that the children will ask, and certainly the recitation of the Haggadah, for we require that it be at the time of the eating of matzah and maror (Beit Yosef in the name of Terumat HaDeshen). Furthermore: for behold the Kiddush is for the sake of the eating of matzah like every Kiddush in the place of a meal, and since the eating of matzah is at night – the Kiddush also must be at night (Taz subsection 1).

Nevertheless, his table should be set while it is still day, in the manner of free men whose table is set a long time before the meal. Furthermore: in order to eat immediately when it grows dark, for the sake of the children so that they do not sleep. And even if he is in the beit midrash and studying—it is a mitzvah to hurry and rise and go and perform the Seder. And so they said regarding Rabbi Akiva, that in all his days he never said "the time has arrived to stand from the beit midrash" except for the eves of Pesachs... for the sake of children so that they do not sleep (109a). And Rabbi Eliezer says there: We snatch matzot on the nights of Pesachs, for the sake of children so that they do not sleep. And Rabbi Akiva would distribute parched grain and nuts to the children on the eve of Pesach, so that they would not sleep and would ask. And the reason for the matter: because we see that the Torah was particular regarding the questions of the sons on this night, as it is written several times "When your son asks you...", and the entire essence of the narration of the Exodus from Egypt is through the questions of the sons and the answers of the father, for through this the pure faith is clarified. Therefore, they performed all actions so that the children would be awake and not sleeping at the time of the Seder. And so it is an obligation upon us to do. And the matter of snatching matzah, Rashi and Rashbam explained that they eat quickly, or they lift the bowl. And the Rambam in the seventh chapter wrote: They snatch matzah one from the hand of the other, see there. (And this is the custom that the children snatch the afikoman from under the pillow. See Chok Yaakov, subsection 2.)

And he should arrange his table with beautiful vessels according to his ability. For even though throughout the year it is good to minimize beautiful vessels as a remembrance of the destruction, nevertheless, on the night of Pesach we perform all signs of freedom. And even if he has silver vessels as collateral, if the owners are not particular, it is proper to place them on the table on the night of Pesach. And this is the reason our sages, of blessed memory, required haseibah, because thus it was in their days that free men would eat by way of haseibah, on pillows and cushions, in a manner of greatness. Therefore, he should prepare his seat while it is still day, and the place of the seat should be for haseibah in a manner of freedom. And know that the Tur wrote in the name of the Raviah that in this time in our lands, where we are not accustomed to eating with haseibah—one does not need to perform haseibah, see there. But all our teachers do not hold accordingly. And on the contrary, it seems in my humble opinion that since it is a mitzvah to make changes on this night, as the Rambam wrote in the seventh chapter that one must make changes on this night so that the children will see and ask, if so, you have no better change than haseibah, as we are not accustomed to this and now we do it. And a proof for this: for behold in the Mishnah (116a) in the question of "Mah Nishtanah"—the question of haseibah was not mentioned, yet in our version it is present. And the reason is that in the time of the Mishnah it was not a change, and the son had nothing to ask about it. But now he asks about the change, and therefore the primary view is like the words of most of the poskim that there is an obligation of haseibah.

And there is further clear proof that one requires hasabah from the Mishnah in "Arvei Pesachim," where we learned that even a poor person of Israel—he may not eat until he reclines. That is to say: lest you say that since he is a poor person and it is not his manner to recline, he does not require hasabah, it comes to teach us that he does not. And the same law applies to us. Our teacher, the Rema, in section 2 wrote that even a poor person who does not have pillows—he shall recline (so it must be said) on the bench. Thus far his words, that is to say: he should perform some minimal hasabah on the bench, by placing his garment or another object; provided that he is not without hasabah, for hasabah is an essential requirement. (The Bach wrote that a mourner does not recline, and the Chok Yaakov and the Knesset HaGedolah rejected his words. However, the Taz and the Magen Avraham cited this. And among us, it is customary to recline, but not with a multitude of pillows. And regarding the wearing of the kittel, there are opinions, and one may do as he wishes. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

When he reclines—he should not lean on his back nor on his face, for this is not the manner of reclining. Nor is it a manner of honor, but rather on his side. And not on his right, but rather on his left. For on his right there is danger, because the esophagus is on the right side, and when he leans on his right—the epiglottis that is over the trachea opens by itself, and the food must enter the esophagus, and if he leans on the right—the entry of the food into the trachea could precede the entry into the esophagus and he will come to danger. And besides this, it is the manner of ministers to lean on the left side. And reclining on the right is not called "reclining" (Gemara 108a, see there and be precise and you will find it easy). And know that regarding reclining there is no difference between a left-handed person and any other person. For even though regarding his hands he is the opposite of every man, it is not so regarding the internal organs. Therefore, the left-handed person also must recline on the left side of every man (and he may lean on the thigh of his fellow).

Our sages, of blessed memory, said (108a): A woman with her husband does not require hasabah. But if she is an important woman, she requires hasabah. Rashbam explained that because she is subservient to her husband, she does not require hasabah. And she is called an "important woman" when her husband takes pride in her, and she is greater in status than him, and if so she is not subservient to him and requires hasabah. Consequently, a woman who does not have a husband—every woman requires hasabah. And likewise, if the husband is not in his home—every woman requires hasabah. However, in the She'iltot (Parashat Tzav) it is written: A woman does not require hasabah, for it is not the way of women to recline, see there. And this refers to all women, for his version of the text was not "a woman with her husband" but rather "a woman" without qualification. And so it is in the Rif. And the reason is because it is not their way to lean on their side. And if she is an important woman, meaning great in beauty or in wealth, like the important woman in the chapter "Ein Ma'amidin" (25b), whose way is to lean—she requires hasabah like a man. And nowadays it is not the way of women to lean at all, and our women do not perform hasabah. Our teacher, the Rema, in section 4 wrote that our women are called important, and require hasabah. Only that they rely on the Raviah, that in this time one does not have to recline. Thus far his words, and this is from the Mordechai. And in my humble opinion it is difficult to say so, for if so, why did the men not rely on the Raviah? Furthermore, it is a minority opinion. Rather, it appears that they relied on the She'iltot and the Rif according to their version of the text. And an important woman is not common, and even if she is important, she does not conduct herself as such.

A son with his father – he requires hesibah even if he is also his primary teacher, for presumably he is not fastidious, unless he knows that he is fastidious. A student with his teacher – he does not require hesibah, for the fear of your teacher is like the fear of Heaven. And he should not perform hesibah in his presence, for this is like assuming authority for himself. This is so even if he is not his primary teacher, unless he gives him permission, for then if he wishes – he may perform hesibah. But if he does not wish to – we do not compel him, as he can say that even with his permission I do not have the audacity to perform hesibah in his presence. Furthermore, the teacher is not obligated to give him permission, because such is the way of the Torah that the student shall fear his teacher with a fear of his greatness. And if he sits with a Torah scholar who is the preeminent of his generation, even if he did not learn anything from him and he is not his teacher – his law is like that of his teacher, and he does not require hesibah because he is also duty-bound to fear him. And it is obvious that all this applies when they are eating at one table. But if he eats at a table by himself, even in the same room – he requires hesibah, for in such a manner it does not appear as arrogance in the presence of his teacher. And the attendant, even though he is occupied with the needs of the house and must rise from his place at every moment, nevertheless requires hesibah at the time of his eating and drinking. (And the Kesef Mishneh in the seventh chapter explained the reason: because anyone who acquires a Hebrew slave is like one who acquires a master for himself, see there. And it appears that the novelty is because he is subordinate to the homeowner. And I would have said that he is exempt and I do not understand, for what is the connection of one to the other? Is he any worse than other laborers who are obligated in hesibah, as it is stated in the Gemara there regarding a carpenter's apprentice? And we do not say this except regarding a student in Torah, and not in other crafts. And it requires further study.)

There are those who wrote that anyone who is exempt from hesiba and yet reclines is called a "commoner," as is found in the Jerusalem Talmud, the first chapter of Shabbat (Magen Avraham subsection 6 in the name of the Rashal and the Taz). And there are those who asked: Behold, we find several stringencies that a person may take upon himself (ibid.). And it can be said that here it is certainly so, for this is only found in the case of a student whose teacher gave him permission, and this is his commonness—that he should not do a thing that is against the honor of his teacher even if he gave him permission. And so too regarding anything similar to this. (And so too regarding a mourner according to the one who exempts—it is a disgrace toward the deceased.)

And anyone who requires hesibah, if he ate or drank without hesibah – he has not fulfilled his obligation, and he must return and eat or drink with hesibah. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7 that there are those who say that in this time when it is not the way to recline, the Raviah is sufficient to rely upon, that post facto he has fulfilled his obligation without hesibah. And it seems to me if he did not drink the third or fourth cup with hesibah – he should not return and drink with hesibah, as there is a concern that it appears like he is adding to the cups. But regarding the first two cups – he should return and drink without a berakhah. And ab initio he should recline for the entire meal. Thus far his words. And post facto he has fulfilled his obligation when he ate with hesibah the kezayit of matzah of "Hamotzi" and of the afikoman and the four cups. And from the words of the Rambam, who wrote in the seventh chapter, "and during the rest of his eating and drinking, if he reclined – he is praiseworthy," thus far his words, it implies that even ab initio it is not required. Rather, if he did so – he is praiseworthy. (See Chok Yaakov subsection 15 in the name of the Mahari, that the kezayit of "Hamotzi" does not require hesibah. And his intention is to what he wrote in siman 475 that one should eat two kezayit-measures for "Hamotzi," see there. But in my humble opinion it does not appear so. And that which he wrote "a kezayit of matzah," is because according to the essence of the law one only requires a kezayit. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And behold, that which he wrote that there is a concern of being like one who adds to the cups regarding the latter ones and not regarding the former ones, the reason is because regarding the former ones it is permitted to add, which is not the case regarding the latter ones, as will be explained. And behold, according to this, nowadays when we are not accustomed to adding even regarding the former ones—one should not return and drink, as it appears like one who adds (Magen Avraham, subsection 7). However, the Rosh wrote that since he drank not according to their regulation—the matter is clarified that it was not of the count of the cups, and what he drinks now is the obligatory one, see there. And there is one who says that regarding all the cups, if he drank without hasibah—he does not need to return and drink another cup (Bach in siman 479 and Chok Yaakov subsection 14). And so it appears primary, for in the Gemara (108a) the halachah was decided that only two cups require hasibah, but because of the doubt we require hasibah for all of them. And if so, regarding every cup it is a doubt of the rabbis and we rule leniently. And it appears to me that also our teacher, the Rema, his primary reason is because of this, and not because of his reliance on a lone opinion, and not because of being like one who adds to the cups. But regarding the first two, where by the law it is permitted to add—what do we care if he adds? And now that we do not add even regarding them—one should not return and drink, as I have written. And there is one who wrote that at the beginning of the Seder his intention should be to return and drink between the former ones, and then if he erred and drank without hasibah—he should return and drink without a berakhah (Magen Avraham, ibid.).

One must drink the cups in the order established by the sages: the first for kiddush, the second after the Haggadah, the third for birkat hamazon, and the fourth for Hallel. If one drank them all at once, meaning he drank cup after cup until he drank four cups—he has not fulfilled the obligation of four cups. And it appears that the same law applies if he drank two not in the proper order, such as if after kiddush he drank two cups—it only counts for him for kiddush, and after the Haggadah he must drink the second cup. And it appears to me that if he drank the cup in the middle of the Haggadah—he has fulfilled the obligation even before the blessing of "Asher Ge'alanu," for the blessings are not indispensable. Furthermore, the recitation of the Haggadah has no fixed measure, and it turns out that he drank after the Haggadah. But if he drank in the middle of birkat hamazon or in the middle of Hallel—he has not fulfilled the obligation, since the sages established it after all of birkat hamazon and after all of Hallel. It further appears to me: if he did not drink one of the cups at its proper time, such as if he did not drink after kiddush—he should drink it afterwards, for there is no other remedy for this, and so too with all the cups (so it appears in my humble opinion).

The measure of the cup: a revi'it, after it is diluted if one wishes to dilute it, such as their wines which were strong. Regarding our wines, dilution is not applicable. The measure of a revi'it is a vessel that holds two fingers by two fingers, and the height is the width of two thumbs and a half of a thumb and a fifth of a thumb (Tur). Its measure is the displacement of an egg and a half of water. There are some of the great authorities who now wish to double the measures because the eggs have decreased in size, and several of those who are meticulous conduct themselves accordingly. We have already explained above in siman 168, section 13, and in Yoreh Deah siman 324 that this is not so; see there carefully. Also regarding the matter of our raisin wine, there is much to doubt. See what I wrote above in siman 204, section 15, and siman 272, section 7, to find justification. And what shall we do since in our lands wine is not common? And the wine that comes from afar, besides being expensive and beyond the means of most of Israel, involves many concerns as is known. If one does not have wine—he should take honey-water, which is called mead, for the four cups.

And one must drink all of it or the majority of it. And if the cup contains many revi'it—several people can fulfill their obligation with it according to the number of revi'it measures within it, but not according to the measure of the majority of the revi'it measures within it, because one requires a revi'it for each person, even though regarding the matter of drinking one fulfills the obligation with its majority. However, some say further that one cup, even if it holds many revi'it measures—only counts for one person, and he is obligated to drink the majority of the cup however it may be. And such is the primary ruling, for such is the opinion of the Ramban and the Mordechai (see Beit Yosef). And one must drink the measure at one time, or at the very least without a large interruption. And he should drink it in the manner of drinking a revi'it. And post facto, he has fulfilled the obligation if he drank with an interruption up to the time it takes to eat a pras. And if he delayed more than this measure—he has not fulfilled the obligation, and he must drink another cup. But with less than this—he has fulfilled the obligation. (The Magen Avraham in subsection 11 wrote that regarding the first two cups, if he delayed more than a revi'it—he should return and drink, see there. And in my humble opinion, since the primary ruling is not like the Rambam, as I wrote in siman 612, see there—he does not return.)

One who does not drink wine because he hates it or it harms him is nevertheless obligated to press himself to fulfill the mitzvah of the four cups with wine, except when he is ill. And we find among the Tannaim and Amoraim that wine was very difficult for them, and nevertheless they pressed themselves to fulfill this mitzvah of the four cups. And it is a mitzvah to seek out red wine if the white is not superior to it, as it is written: "Look not upon the wine when it is red." And one fulfills the obligation with cooked wine and with konditon. And among us, this is not common. And even a poor person who is supported by charity—he must sell his garment or borrow or hire himself out for the four cups, or receive from the charity collectors. And if he has only four cups for the two nights—he should take them all for the first night, which is the primary one. For we are experts in the fixing of the month, and therefore he should fulfill the four cups on this night according to their enactment (Magen Avraham, subsection 14). And the lamp of his home takes precedence over the four cups for the sake of domestic peace, as I wrote in siman 263.

And women are also obligated in the four cups, and in all the mitzvot pertaining to that night, such as the eating of matzah and the recitation of the Haggadah. And if they are unable to recite it themselves—they should hear the Haggadah. Because it is written: "You shall not eat leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat matzah with it"—whoever is included in the prohibition of eating chametz is included in the obligation of eating matzah, and women are included in the prohibition of chametz, for regarding negative commandments—the mitzvot of women are like those of men. Therefore they are also obligated in the eating of matzah, even though this is a positive time-bound commandment. And consequently, since they are obligated in matzah—they are also obligated in the Pesach offering and maror, for they are compared to one another, as it is written: "with matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it." And even though maror in this time is midrabbanan, nevertheless, whatever the sages ordained—they ordained similar to the Torah law, and consequently they are also obligated in all the mitzvot of the night, as they are all one matter. Furthermore: for in the merit of righteous women our ancestors were redeemed from Egypt, and therefore it is obvious that the obligation is upon them in all the mitzvot of the night, which is only because of the redemption from Egypt. And therefore one must give a cup to each of the members of his household, whether males or females. And even children who have reached the age of chinuch—it is a mitzvah to give each one his cup before him. And "reached the age of chinuch" is called about five years old or about six years old (Chayei Adam, subsection 27). And if he did not give it—it does not invalidate (ibid.). And he may give them a small cup (see Taz), and they only need to drink a little. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 15 that one should not take a cup whose mouth is narrow like a "kluk glass," because he will not be able to drink a revit at once. And regarding the cup of Birkat HaMazon—in any case we do not take it, and see above siman 183, and likewise regarding the cup of kiddush. And see above siman 271. Thus far his words. And before children—there is no concern. And it appears to me that even though in all places girls are not included in chinuch, nevertheless on the night of Pesach one must train them as well, because the essence of faith depends on the Exodus from Egypt. And it is a mitzvah to distribute parched grain and nuts to the children, so that they will see a change and ask. And the Torah was particular about the questioning of the children on this night, as I wrote in section 2.