Siman 473

At the beginning of the order, they pour him the first cup. This refers to their wines, and from the wording of the Mishnah (114a) "they poured for him" — it implies that others should pour for him and not he himself, in the manner of freedom. And he recites kiddush over it, and first recites the blessing "borei pri hagafen," and afterward says the kiddush of the day and "shehecheyanu," and drinks the first cup. And if he did not recite "shehecheyanu" on the first night — he should recite it on the second night. And if he did not recite it on the second night — he should recite it throughout the holiday even without a cup, for "shehecheyanu" does not require a cup (Eruvin 40b). And likewise, if he recited it on the first night, but did not recite "shehecheyanu" on the second night — he should recite it afterward (Magen Avraham subsection 1), for he is obligated to recite it because of the doubt of the day. But if he did not recite it on the first night, and recited it on the second night — he does not need to recite it again for the sake of the first day, for in any event: if the second night is the Yom Tov — then he does not need it for the first. And if the first is the Yom Tov — then what he recited on the second counts, for it is no worse than the rest of the days of the holiday (Chok Yaakov subsection 1). And it is simple that if he did not recite it at the time of kiddush and remembered afterward, that he must recite it at the place where he remembered even without a cup, for "shehecheyanu" does not require a cup. Therefore, even if he has no cups — he recites "shehecheyanu." And if he did not say the Haggadah on this night — he has no compensation (ibid.). And likewise, if he did not eat matzah or maror on this night — he has no compensation, for their mitzvah is only on this night.

The Tur wrote: And he does not recite the blessing "Who performed miracles," because he is destined to say it in the Haggadah. Thus far his words, meaning: just as we recite the blessing "Who performed miracles" on Chanukah and Purim, it is obvious that on Pesach one should have recited it as well. However, since in the Haggadah we recount the miracles and wonders, and afterward we recite the blessing "Who redeemed us" – it follows that this is equivalent to the blessing "Who performed miracles," and why would I need two? Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, this is not sufficient, for in the Megillah we recite a blessing at the beginning and at the end, and why should we not do so regarding the Exodus from Egypt, whose miracles were greater than the miracle of Purim?

And in the name of the Maharil I saw a reason: because it is a mitzvah written in the Torah, and we do not recite the blessing "Who performed miracles" except for a rabbinic mitzvah, such as Hanukkah and Purim (Prisha). And ostensibly these words are not understood, but the truth is that this is the explanation: for behold, all blessings were instituted by the sages, and a blessing is only relevant to bless the Holy One, blessed be He, who commanded us in this mitzvah, such as to eat matzah, to sit in a sukkah, to blow the shofar. But not to make a blessing out of the essence of the mitzvah itself. And since from the Torah we are commanded to recount the miracles on this night, and it is a positive commandment, if so, how could we recite the blessing "Who performed miracles"? For behold, this is the very essence of the mitzvah, and it would be like a narration after a narration. And the blessing "Who redeemed us" – its essence is for the eating of matzah and maror, as we say "and brought us to this night to eat in it matzah and maror." But "Who performed miracles" – this is the essence of the mitzvah of recounting the Exodus from Egypt, and only regarding a rabbinic mitzvah is the authority in their hands, but not regarding a Torah commandment. (The Prisha further wrote in the name of R.A. because it is a day of salvation, and the miracle is superior. Thus far his words, and I do not know its explanation.)

And if it falls on Shabbat, one says "Vaykhulu," and on the conclusion of Shabbat, one says Havdalah after Kiddush while seated. And even though other Havdalah recitations are said standing, nevertheless, this one which is with Kiddush and in the order—one says while seated. And there are no besamim in this Havdalah, for besamim are only to strengthen the soul, and this is when the conclusion of Shabbat is a weekday and not a Yom Tov, for [on Yom Tov] the soul is inherently in its strength, and also on Yom Tov there are good foods. And the text of the Havdalah is: "Who distinguishes... between the sanctity of Shabbat and the sanctity of Yom Tov You have distinguished, and the seventh day from the six days of labor You have sanctified. You have distinguished and sanctified Your nation Israel with Your sanctity." And our teacher Tam wrote in the Tosafot of Pesachim (104a) the reason that we lengthen this Havdalah so much: since we learned there, "One who reduces should not reduce below three, and one who adds should not add beyond seven"—therefore, because of the obligation of the day, we mention seven distinctions at one time, and they are: "between holy and profane"—one, "between light and darkness"—two, "between Israel and the nations"—three, "between the seventh day and the six days of labor"—four, "between the sanctity of Shabbat and the sanctity of Yom Tov You have distinguished," for on Yom Tov preparation of food is permitted—behold five, "You have distinguished and sanctified Your nation Israel"—two distinctions: between Israel and the tribe of Levi, as it is written, "At that time Hashem distinguished the tribe of Levi," and between Levites and Kohanim, as it is written, "And Aaron was distinguished to sanctify him"—behold seven.

And the order of the havdalah is: Yakneha"z – wine, kiddush, candle, havdalah, zeman. And thus the halacha was ruled in Pesachim (103a), because kiddush precedes havdalah, and zeman is always at the end, see there. And if one forgot to recite havdalah, and did not remember until he began the Haggadah – he should complete the Haggadah until "Ga'al Yisrael," and afterward recite havdalah. And why should he not recite havdalah in the middle of the Haggadah? Not because it is forbidden to interrupt, but because havdalah requires a cup, and how shall he act? If he drinks – he is adding to the cups, for initially one should not add even during the first two cups. And if he does not drink until the second cup – there is an interruption between the havdalah and the drinking of the cup (Chok Yaakov, subsection 5). And that he should drink and fulfill with it the obligation of the second cup, according to what we wrote in the previous siman, section 11, see there that certainly initially it is forbidden to do so. Therefore, he should wait until "Ga'al Yisrael," and recite havdalah and drink. And what of it? For he is not eating and he is not drinking until afterward, such that we would say there is a prohibition to eat and drink before havdalah. Therefore, if he did not remember until he began to eat – he should stop immediately and recite havdalah. And if his intention was to drink wine during the meal – he does not need to recite the blessing "Borei Peri HaGafen." And if not – he must recite the blessing. And if he forgot until after Birkat HaMazon – he should recite havdalah afterward, and drink the third cup, and it shall count for both of them. And so too if he did not remember until after Hallel. And in the middle of Birkat HaMazon and in the middle of Hallel – he should not interrupt. And even though we do not say two sanctities over one cup, in a place where it is impossible it is different (see Magen Avraham, subsection 2).

And one should not wash his hands before kiddush at all. And even for those who always practice washing the hands before kiddush as I wrote in siman 271, nevertheless on Pesach it is impossible because there would be a great interruption during the recitation of the Haggadah, and perforce he must wash his hands before the meal. And even though here he requires washing immediately for the dipping of the karpas, and why should he not wash before kiddush? However, even this is impossible, for one who sees will say that washing is required for kiddush. And in truth it is not so, for it is well during the rest of the year—everyone knows that the washing is for the sake of the meal, which is not the case on Pesach—the matter is not recognizable that it is for the sake of the dipping. And even if his hands are not clean—he should wash a little. And if it happened that he washed his hands before kiddush—he should not wash again for the dipping (Rashal). And some say he should wash (Bach), and the primary view is like the first opinion. (Magen Avraham subsection 3, and see Taz subsection 1. And be precise and you will find it easy.) And know that when his hands are not clean, where we wrote that he should wash a little, yet we do not recite the blessing "al netilat yadayim" over it. And we have already written that the master of the house should not pour for himself but rather another, for this is the way of freedom. And we are not careful in this, for it appears like haughtiness to command his wife to pour, and the husband is not superior to her. Therefore, it is customary to pour for oneself, and this is not a matter of concern.

And after the kiddush – he drinks the cup while in a state of hasiba. And he does not recite a blessing after it, for we rely on the final blessing after the Hallel; for they are all one matter, and why should we multiply blessings in vain? And also a first blessing is not required for the second cup, and that which we do recite a blessing will be explained in siman 474, see there. And if he drank without hasiba, the Tur ruled that he should drink another cup with hasiba. And in the previous siman we explained this, see there. And if he wishes to drink several cups – he has permission to do so, as we learned in the Mishnah (117b): Between these cups, if he wants to drink – he may drink. Between the third and the fourth – he may not drink. And the Yerushalmi explains the reason: so that he does not become intoxicated. But wine before the meal – does not intoxicate, see there. And the Tur wrote only that he should direct his heart so that he will not need to recite a blessing a second time, so that it does not appear as if he is adding to the cups. Thus far his words. For whenever one needs to recite a blessing – it is considered adding. And if so, according to our practice, that we recite a blessing over each and every cup – it is forbidden to add. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch follow their own reasoning, that one does not need to recite a blessing over the second cup, as I will write in the next siman, and not according to our practice, see there. And according to our practice, there is no permission to drink between the first and the second, unless he had the intention to drink (Chok Yaakov, subsection 10). And also regarding this, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3 that in any case it is proper to be careful not to drink between the first and the second unless for a great need, so that he does not become intoxicated, and be prevented from performing the Seder and the reading of the Haggadah. Thus far his words. And even though wine before the meal does not intoxicate – that was for them, and not for us whose strengths are weak. And also other beverages that do not intoxicate – one should refrain from drinking. Only water when one is thirsty – it seems to me that it is permitted for him to drink, and they do not require a blessing, for wine exempts all types of beverages. (So it appears in my humble opinion. And see Chok Yaakov, subsection 11.)

Know that the opinion of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rashba is that one only requires two matzot on the plate, and when one breaks one—there remains one broken and one whole. We do not find in the Gemara that there is a need for three matzot. And in the Yerushalmi "Arvei Pesachim," according to what the Or Zarua (siman 252) cited as well—it is so. And it is likewise implied in Berakhot (39b) which says that on Pesach one places the broken piece inside the whole one and breaks it—implying that it is one whole one. And in the Bahag, he distinguishes between Shabbat and a weekday, for when it falls on Shabbat—one requires three. But the Rosh in "Arvei Pesachim" (siman 30) disagrees with this and says: Is Pesach any less than other Yom Tov where one requires lechem mishneh? And so wrote the Tosafot, and so wrote the Or Zarua in the name of Rashbam. And it is a remembrance of the loaves of the Todah, for three loaves would come from one tenth. Therefore, one requires three matzot for the Seder, and such is the custom of the world.

And they bring before the master of the house a bowl with three matzot, and maror, and charoset, and karpas or another vegetable, and vinegar or salt water, and two cooked foods – one in memory of the Pesach, and one in memory of the Chagigah. And the custom of the world is with meat and an egg. And it is proper for the meat to be from the zeroa, which is to say from the foreleg if possible, in memory of the "outstretched arm." And we are not accustomed to this, because it is difficult to obtain, and we take meat on a bone. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4 that they were accustomed for the meat to be roasted on coals, and the egg to be boiled. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And the same law applies to roasted, and so we practice in our city. Thus far his words. And according to this, it would be forbidden to eat the meat at night, because we do not eat roasted meat on the night [of Pesach]. And the reason appears to be because the meat is in memory of the Pesach, which is only eaten roasted, therefore the meat is also roasted. And the egg is in memory of the Chagigah, which is eaten boiled, therefore the egg is also boiled. And the custom that they practiced that even the egg is roasted, could be because Ben Teima holds that even the Chagigah is only eaten roasted (70a). And there are those who wrote that it is better to boil the meat and the egg, so that they may eat them at night. For if he leaves them for the second day – it will lead to a mishap if he roasts them on the first night, for one Yom Tov does not prepare for its fellow. However, regarding the egg, even roasted is permitted. And among us, they are accustomed to boil the meat and the egg. And that which they chose an egg in place of the Chagigah, is because we are accustomed to eat eggs at the Seder. (See Magen Avraham subsection 8, and Taz subsection 4.)

And for karpas, we are accustomed to take onions, or radish, or a type of vegetable whose blessing is "ha'adamah," or potatoes. The Acharonim mentioned that they were accustomed to take parsley, and we do not know what it is. And the matter of the karpas is a remembrance of the backbreaking labor that sixty myriads performed, for "karpas" is the letters of "sixty parekh." And the salt water, when it falls on Shabbat—one should prepare them before the Shabbat, for it is forbidden to make salt water on Shabbat, as I wrote in siman 321. However, there it was explained that anything needed for that meal is permitted. Therefore, if he did not prepare it during the day—he should make it on Shabbat, but not a large amount.

And he shall arrange the plate before him in a manner that he does not need to pass over the mitzvot, which is to say: the karpas shall be closer to him than everything else, as it is needed first. And also the salt water closer than the matzah. However, among us, we do not place the salt water on the plate. And the matzah shall be closer than the maror, because the eating of matzah precedes the maror. And the charoset and they shall be closer than the meat and the egg, which are not eaten until the middle of the meal. And the custom among us is already to arrange on the plate: the zeroa on the right above, and the egg opposite it on the left, and the maror in the middle lower than them. And below on the plate: charoset on the right, and karpas slightly lower on the left, and the maror for "korech" in the middle. And so it is according to the wisdom of Kabbalah, as is explained in "Pri Etz Chaim."

The sages taught in the Mishnah (39a): And these are the vegetables with which a person fulfills his obligation on Pesach: with chazeret, with tamcha, with charchavina, with ulshin, and with maror. "Chazeret" is commonly explained as salata, and so the translator in the Aruch explained under the entry "chazar." And in the Gemara they said: What is chazeret? Chasa. And under the entry "chas" the translator explained as latic, see there. And "tamcha" is commonly explained as krain or chrain. And in the Aruch he translated as ein pflanza, and I do not know what this name is. And "charchavina" I do not know, and in the Aruch he explained: a type of bitter herb. And in the Gemara they said: atzvata dedikla, and Rashi explained: a fiber that grows and winds around the palm tree. And the Aruch also explained thus, and it must be said that it is a bitter herb and it winds around the palm tree (see Tosafot ibid.). And in the name of Rav Hai Gaon he explained: a very thick plant, and it has on it things like the heads of needles, see there. And "ulshin" they explained in the Gemara: hindiva. And the Aruch explained them in a foreign tongue and we do not know them. However, it is not like the foreign tongue of Rashi, and perhaps they are two different languages. And "maror" they explained in the Gemara: merirata. And Rashi explained in a foreign tongue, and we do not know its meaning, and in the Aruch I did not find it. And the Bartenura explained: a type of kusbarta, and it is exceedingly bitter. And we do not know what this is, and also in the Aruch I did not find kusbarta.

Anything mentioned earlier in the Mishnah precedes that which is after it. Therefore, chazeret precedes all. And so they said in the Gemara ibid.: The mitzvah is with chazeret. What is "chazeret"? Chasa. What is "chasa"? That the Merciful One had pity (chas) on us. Therefore, even though it does not have bitterness, nevertheless it is more of a mitzvah. And after it is tamcha, and so on in order. In our countries we take tamcha, because chazeret is not yet found before Pesach, except in the courtyards of the ministers. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5 that if one does not have one of these vegetables, he should take la'anah or another bitter vegetable. Thus far his words. And it appears that he holds that this which we learned in the Mishnah "and with maror," and the Gemara explains as "merirata," its meaning is this: any type of bitter vegetable. There is one who holds that merirata is la'anah, and not other bitter vegetables. Therefore, other bitter vegetables should be eaten without a berakhah. And so one should do (see Magen Avraham subsection 15, and Chayei Adam subsection 24). And regarding "la'anah" — they wrote that this is what is called wermut. An Israelite should not uproot the maror from the ground himself, for perhaps it is stolen land. Rather, the non-Jew should uproot it and he shall take it from him, for it would be despair and a change of domain. See below, siman 649 (see Magen Avraham subsection 14).

These five species join together to form a kezayit. Therefore, there are those among us who take a little chazeret with a little tamcha, for it is good to eat them together. And when there is a kezayit from both of them—he has fulfilled his obligation. And one fulfills the obligation with all of these: whether with their leaves or with the stalks. But not with the roots, meaning the small roots that branch out here and there. However, the large root upon which the leaves grow, even though it is hidden in the ground—this is included in the category of "stalk." Nevertheless, it is better to take the leaves and the stalk that emerges outside the ground, because some say that what is hidden in the ground is called a "root." But the primary view is like the first opinion (the Gra"z, section 28). And know that there is one who wished to say that regarding tamcha, which is called "chrain"—one does not fulfill the obligation with it unless he eats it in its entirety as it is, and not that which is grated with a thresher which is called a "reib-eisen," in the manner that it is eaten with meat where it is crumbled very fine. And it is a wondrous thing to say so, for on the contrary, this is its primary form of eating when it is crumbled, and to eat it as it is is a danger, as is known. And so conducted themselves all the giants of the world. And for one for whom it is difficult to eat tamcha due to weakness of the heart—he must necessarily seek out chazeret, even if it will cost him a high price. However, he can take the leaves of the tamcha, which have only a little bitterness, for one fulfills the obligation with leaves as has been explained. And one who is ill and cannot eat maror—shall not eat it. And we hold that matzah in this time is from the Torah, and maror is rabbinic (120a). For it is written: "with matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it"—at a time when there is a Pesach offering there is maror, and at a time when there is no Pesach offering there is no maror. And if it is difficult: for if so, matzah also should not be so? For regarding matzah, the verse returns and repeats: "in the evening you shall eat matzot"—even when there is no Pesach offering (ibid.).

With leaves, one does not fulfill the obligation unless they are fresh, but not withered, which are called "zveyelet," and it goes without saying not if they are dry. However, with the stalks, one fulfills the obligation whether they are fresh or dry, and it goes without saying if they are withered, for since the stalk is thick, the taste of its bitterness is not lost by drying. But one does not fulfill the obligation with a cooked stalk, because through cooking the bitter taste is completely lost. And even though chazeret has no bitterness at all, this is because such is its nature. But this, which has bitterness, when the bitterness within it is lost, it is not maror, for it has changed from its natural state. And soaked is like cooked, and one does not fulfill the obligation with it. And there are two types of soaking: The first: soaking in vinegar or brine. The duration of this soaking is brief, only the amount of time it would take to place it on the fire and for it to begin to boil. And the second: soaking in water. This soaking requires "twenty-four hours." Therefore, they should be careful not to leave the tamcha in water for twenty-four hours. There are those who are pressed to say that tamcha, even if it was soaked for twenty-four hours, does not change. But this is not the primary view. Anything soaked for twenty-four hours, one does not fulfill the obligation with it, and thus the great authorities agreed. (Magen Avraham subsection 14, and Chayei Adam subsection 20, see there where he was pressed to justify the custom. And his words are forced, and one can remove them before the "twenty-four hours." And see what the Rav Zal wrote in section 29. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

All the laws that apply to matzah apply to maror. Therefore, one fulfills the obligation with demai, with ma'aser rishon from which its terumah was taken, and with ma'aser sheni and hekdesh that were redeemed; all as has been explained in siman 453. And everything explained there with which one does not fulfill the obligation for matzah—one does not fulfill the obligation for maror as well. And even though matzah is from the Torah and maror is rabbinic, whatever the sages ordained—they ordained similar to the Torah law, as it is stated in the Gemara (39b). And one should not wonder why the primary fulfillment of the mitzvah is with chazeret, given that it has no bitterness, and the Torah said "maror." But in truth, the name "maror" includes two things: bitterness of taste and hardness, that its end is to harden. And the backbreaking labor in Egypt was soft at its beginning and hard at its end, according to the commentary of Rashi on the Pentateuch. And chazeret is soft at its beginning and hard at its end, therefore it is the primary type of maror. And this is the intent of the Shas there (39a, see there; examine it and you will find it easy).

Charoset must be thick, a remembrance of the mortar with which our ancestors were enslaved in Egypt, as it is written: "with mortar and with bricks." And afterward one must soften it with a liquid, a remembrance of the blood that the Egyptians spilled of Israel, as it is written: "Every son that is born—into the Nile you shall cast him." And they would also place children in the building, as is explained in the Aggadot. And one should make the charoset from fruits to which Israel is compared: fig and walnut, dates and pomegranates. And among us, where we do not eat dried fruits—we make it from walnuts and almonds, because the Holy One, Blessed be He, hastened [shakad] the end to act. And from apples because of "under the apple tree I aroused you," for they would give birth to their children there, as is found in the first chapter of Sotah (11b). And one should put in it something tart like wine and vinegar, a remembrance of the enslavement, for the teeth of Israel were set on edge from the magnitude of the enslavement. And we put in it spices that resemble straw, such as cinnamon and ginger, which are called tzimring and ingber; for they are not crushed well, and there remain in them after crushing some long pieces, a remembrance of the straw that was not given to us, as is written in the Torah. And if Pesach falls on Shabbat—one must soften the charoset while it is still day, for on Shabbat it is forbidden because it is like kneading. And if he did not soften it while it was still day—he shall put the liquid into it, and he shall not mix it with a spoon. And this too, to put the liquid in first.

And after he recites Kiddush – he washes his hands for the purpose of the first dipping, and he does not recite the blessing "on the washing of hands." And even one who is not careful throughout the entire year regarding dipping in liquid to wash his hands – on Pesach he shall wash his hands, for behold, we perform several changes on this night. And the matter of the dipping is so that the children will ask why we dip before the meal, which is not the usual way to act. For it has already been explained that the Torah was particular on this night regarding the questioning of the children. And he shall take from the karpas less than a kezayit, and dip it in vinegar or salt water, and recite the blessing "Who creates the fruit of the ground." And he intends with this blessing to exempt the maror from a blessing as well, even though according to the letter of the law it would not require a blessing for the maror anyway, since it is within the meal and one is obligated to eat it – it is like things that come within the meal which do not require a blessing. Nevertheless, he should intend to exempt it, for perhaps since the maror comes for a mitzvah and not for the purpose of eating – it is not like things that come on account of the meal.

That which we wrote, that one should not eat a kaza'it, the reason is so that he does not come to the obligation of an after-blessing. For some say that when one eats a kaza'it, he requires an after-blessing. And it is not similar to the appetizer before the meal, which the Birkat HaMazon exempts, for here there is a great interruption with the saying of the Haggadah. And some say that he does not need to bless, for the Haggadah does not constitute an interruption, since it is of the matter of the Seder. Therefore, one should not eat a kaza'it ab initio. And if he ate—he should not bless an after-blessing, for the rule of doubt regarding blessings is to be lenient. The Rambam in the eighth chapter wrote that he should eat a kaza'it, and all those reclining should eat a kaza'it each, for there is no eating less than a kaza'it (Maggid Mishneh). The Tur and other Rishonim disagreed with him, for since this dipping is only for a distinction, why is a kaza'it necessary? Furthermore, the Rambam wrote that this dipping is in charoset. The Tur wrote that it does not need charoset, and our custom is like the Tur.

And after the dipping, he takes the middle matzah and breaks it in two, and hands half of it to another to guard it for the afikoman. Our custom is to place it under the cushions of the reclining, a remembrance of "their kneading bowls wrapped in their garments upon their shoulders." Therefore, there are those who lift the half of the afikoman upon the shoulder for a moment. And the second half he shall place between the two whole ones. And he shall lift the bowl that contains the matzot, or the matzot alone, and say "Ha Lachma Anya" until "Mah Nishtanah." And the primary version is "Ha Lachma," as I have written. And he should say it in a language that the women and the small children understand, or he should explain the matter to them. And thus the great ones did. And now that printings have increased, and the Haggadah is printed in the vernacular, and all our women and children read for themselves—it is not the custom to explain to them, for they know for themselves how to read and understand the matter of the Exodus from Egypt.

And after the saying of "Ha Lachma" – he shall remove the matzah from the table. And this is according to their custom, as they had small tables and would uproot the table. And now we cover the bread with a cloth, and this is in place of uprooting the table. And this too is so that the children will see and ask: "Why are they uprooting the table? For we have not yet eaten!" And immediately they pour him a second cup, so that the son will ask: "Why are they pouring a second cup? For we have not yet eaten!" And now we are not accustomed to this question, but rather we ask "Mah Nishtanah?" And the matter of "Mah Nishtanah" is like the matter of "How great are Your works, O Lord!", "How goodly are your tents, O Jacob!" – by way of wonderment. And so here we wonder: "How great are the changes on this night!" And in the Mishnah there is the question of the roasted meat, and there is no question of reclining, because they ate the Pesach sacrifice and were always accustomed to reclining. And now the question of roasted meat is not relevant, and there is the question of reclining, because we are not always accustomed to reclining. And if there is no wisdom in the son to ask – his father teaches him to ask. And if he has no son – the daughter shall ask. And if he has no daughter – his wife shall ask him, or another sitting at the table shall ask him. Because the Torah insisted that the matter of remembering the Exodus from Egypt on this night be by way of question and answer. But if there is no one to ask – he asks and answers himself. And when there is one who asks – he does not need to say the "Mah Nishtanah," but rather begins "Avadim Hayinu." (And he should not say "this night is entirely maror," but rather "this night is maror.")

When the questioner finishes "Mah Nishtanah," he uncovers the matzah and begins to say "Avadim Hayinu" in a loud voice and with excitement, and with joy and gladness. The essence of saying the Haggadah is that through the Exodus from Egypt—we became enslaved forever for all generations to Hashem and His Torah, and we are His servants. This is according to absolute law, for a free man cannot be acquired as a servant against his will, but one who was a servant to one and another took him from his owners as a servant for himself—the consent of the servant is not required, and he is acquired against the servant's will, as is explained in Yoreh Deah siman 267. And now, since we were servants to Pharaoh, and the Holy One, blessed be He, redeemed us from his hand, therefore against our will we are His servants. This is what the verse says: "For to Me the children of Israel are servants; they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt." That is to say: for to Me the children of Israel are servants against their will and not by their desire, because I brought them out of Egypt, where they were servants there. Therefore, in every generation, one is obligated to see himself as if he went out from Egypt, and was acquired by the Holy One, blessed be He, as an eternal servant. And he is not permitted to remove the yoke of the Torah from his neck. And he brings proof from the verse "Because of this Hashem did for me...", and this refers to every generation. And because one who wishes to be stubborn could say that it refers only to the generation that went out from Egypt, like the question of the wicked son who says "What is this service to you?" meaning: surely you did not go out from Egypt. For this, he brings proof from the verse "And us He brought out from there," which concludes "to give us the land." And behold, all those who went out from Egypt died in the wilderness? Rather, it certainly refers to every generation. (And this is what Rava said in the Gemara 116b: One must say: "And us He brought out from there." Examine it and you will find it simple.)

When one reaches "This matzah" – he must raise the matzah. And the main part is the broken piece which is like the bread of affliction, in order to show it to those reclining, so that the mitzvah shall be beloved to them. And so too when he reaches "This maror." But regarding the pesach – one should not raise the shankbone, so that it does not appear as if he is consecrating it for a pesach offering. And when he reaches "Therefore" – each person raises his cup in his hand until he reaches "Who redeemed Israel." And among us, they place the cup on the table when reaching Hallel, and afterwards during the blessing they take it in hand until "Who redeemed Israel." And so too when they say "And it is this that has stood," they hold the cup in hand. And the matter is that in every place where they mention the salvation – they take the cup, like the matter of "I will lift the cup of salvations, and call upon the name of Hashem." For all joys are over wine, as it is written: "And wine gladdens…". And there is also a deep matter in this concerning our pure faith, as it is written: "Hashem is the Elokim," for "Elokim" in gematria is "HaTeva" [Nature]. And the explanation: that even our nature is not natural, but rather by the providence of the name Havayah, blessed be He. And it is a great principle, as is understood. And "kos" [cup] is in gematria "Elokim." And when he takes the cup – he should cover the bread so that its shame is not seen, as in kiddush. But during the narration of the Haggadah – the bread must be revealed to see the bread of affliction.

And when one reaches "blood and fire and pillars of smoke" – it is customary to spill a bit from the cup with the finger, based on the verse "it is the finger of G-d." And so too for the ten plagues, and so too for Detzach Adash Beachav. In total there are sixteen spillings, and there is a secret in this. And some are customary to spill from the cup itself. And some are customary to spill with the fourth finger, which is the kemitzah. And some are customary with the fifth finger, which is called the zeret (see Magen Avraham, subsection 28). One who acts like this master has acted, and one who acts like this master has acted.

In the Haggadah, when saying "One might think from Rosh Chodesh" – one must say beforehand "And you shall tell your son," for it stands upon this verse, as is explained in the Mechilta. Similarly, one should not say "For corresponding to four sons...", but rather "Corresponding to four sons," for it is a matter unto itself and does not stand upon what is above. And one must say "And let us sing before Him a new song" with a segol under the nun, for it stands in the past tense regarding the Exodus from Egypt (Magen Avraham, subsection 27). And one should say "From the sacrifices and from the Pesachim," for the chagigah precedes the Pesach, as the Pesach is eaten while satiated. But on the conclusion of Shabbat, one should say "From the Pesachim" first, for the chagigah does not override Shabbat. And there is one who wishes to say that it stands upon the previous year, but it is not so, as we explained in the explanation of the Haggadah with the help of Heaven.

And they divide the Hallel: part of it before the meal, and part of it after the meal, because we do not recite a blessing over the Hallel. Therefore, they say part of it beforehand, so that the blessing of "Who redeemed us" will also encompass the Hallel. And until where does one say before the meal? Until "into a fountain of waters." And in the Tosefta the reason is explicit, and we have explained it with the help of Heaven in the explanation of the Haggadah. And there are those who are accustomed to say the Hallel in the synagogue based on the Yerushalmi, and it is a beautiful custom. Therefore, they do not recite a blessing over the Hallel in the meal, because they already recited the blessing in the synagogue. And we, who do not say Hallel in the synagogue – it should have been the law to recite a blessing over the Hallel in the meal, but they have not accustomed so. And this Hallel they say while sitting, even though in the synagogue they say it while standing.