Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 007

Wednesday, March 28 2001

• water on Pesach
• Re: Avodah V7 #5
• Gebrochts
• Re: Avodah V7 #4
• Akiras Hashulchan
• vhigadita lbincha
• RE: vhigadita lbincha
• Re: Gebrochts
• RE: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic Gebrokts Eaters
• Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic Gebrokts Ea ters
• RE: Gebrokts Shabbos Erev Pesach
• Re: Matzah mehl Rolls on Erev Pesach
• RE: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic Re: Avo dah V7 #5
• RE: Shower in Lieu of Tevilas Ezra?
• Re: Starting Shmoneh Esrai Before The Deadline In Question
• Re: Is'arusa d'l'Eila; Is'arusa d'l'Tatta
• Re: Starting Shmoneh Esrai Before The Deadline In Question
• Eating matza Erev Pessach
• Matzos Mitsva, ShLo L'Shma?
• RE: Gebrokts Shabbos Erev Pesach
• Re: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic Gebrokts Eaters
• Re: Dor Revi'i on avadim hayinu

Carl wrote
> 1. I would propose that a Ma She'hu has to be visible to the naked
> eye. With the water supply, if someone is fishing in the Kineret and
> they are using bread as bait, that bread is visible to the naked eye (it
> may not be by the time it gets to Yerushalayim - which may be why most
> people are not choshesh for using the water supply). But for Chametz
> that is visible to come flying through the air into your food strikes
> me as a milsa d'lo shicha.

Sorry, but I don't understand the difference between someone using bread
as a bait in the kinneret and someone cooking fresh bread in a bakery
and the odor and particles go into the air (if you prefer some liquid
chametz that evaporates into the air)

> 2. This may be a stretch, but I would propose that with respect to the
> bread in the water supply, it's an inyan of kol ha'kavua k'mechtza al
> mechtza damya (the Kinneret being essentially kavua). But with the air
> surrounding the food I eat during Pesach, as long as I am eating in my
> home, and not in the office with my goyishe co-workers, I would argue
> that rov of the food is Pesachdig and therefore kol d'pareesh mei'ruba
> pareesh would solve my problem.

As you indicate it is a stretch. The gemara generally considers water
as moving. It is clear that ordinarily issur in water is batel be-rov
or shishim. We are only talking about the mashehu of Pesach. So once
the bread disolves in the water it is certainly batel in the usual sense.

Rena asks
> Don't I recall this concept being answered in the first section of the mishna
> Psachim [perek aleph], the part discussing the mouse and how we can only take
> things just so far? How much chametz do you think is measurable in the air,
> exactly?

But that is exactly my point. The amount of Chametz in air or in water
is not measurable in any ordinary way. For a chemist to try and detect
the chametz in the water supply due to chametz in the kinneret would be
very difficult even if a tracer material would be put into the chametz.
Hence, I find the humra of not drinking from the regular water supply
very far fetched.

I basically agree with R. Lipschitz as presented by Micha that the Torah
and rabbis do not concern themselves with microscopic amounts even
when we are talking about a mashehu. One minor quibble is that every
mixture of liquids is not visible to the eye. Similarly if the issur and
heter are the same material then one cannot tell the difference between
them. Hence R. Dovid's explanation has to be expanded. It is not just
what is visible to the eye. Even smaller things can be assur as long as
it a recognizable amount. One part per billion is not even a mashehu.

Eli Turkel

From: "Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
>> just a question  or two if you can bear with me for a minute-- in your first
>> paragraph, is it our contribution the challah which is called IDT as opposed
>> to shabbos which is called IDE?

How about different parts of Tefilla?  Tachnun definitely IDT but Amidah
itself is an enabling of IDE after all the preceding preparation?

So preparation during the sefirah is IDT and Shavuos is IDE it would seem.

>> Techiyas hamaysim is an obvious IDE? right?

> Nope - that's what I would have thought as well. But, RSF clarifies that
> Chazal tell us there is prerequisite zechus - ThM requires zechus of Torah
> (and Mitzvos) to merit - so, while the process cannot begin until Hashem
> wills it, according to RSF, it is inherently an IdT procedure.

It seems in many things,   IdT *leads to IdE*.  hishtadlut/tefila/zchus  to
syata dishmaya in a broad sense.
Ani ledodi vedodi li- in a sense:  I reach out to my love, (THEN) my love
will reach out to me-  reciprocal relationship.
On a penimiyus level relates to ahavat olamim IdT  leading to ahava raba.
IdE in the Tanya.

> Matzo is likened to the Mon - it has no human element to it - it is the
> simple combination of flour (grain) and water. Bread has the human element
> of fermentation.

OTOH-  you might think the opposite:  human effort is required to bring the
flour and water together but fermentation is inevitable process over time.
However, matza represents minimal hishtadlus, zerizus, simplicity, no delay
and thus a higher level of bitachon whereas bread is regular bitachon.
mon was also associated with tal- IdT.

So it seems we're talking about different qualities of IdT.

RSF goes further. Fermentation is the breakdown of enzymes.

I'm sure you mean the breakdown of starch by enzymes.

[As far as I know, it's the breakdown of starches and sugars by microbes.
The original point remains, though. -mi]

respectfully,
Gila Atwood

Gil Student writes
> The Rashbash (#90) recommended that they bake bread out of matzah meal, a 
> practice that he claims is otherwise rabbinically forbidden as a gezeirah.

> There you have it - a rishon forbidding at least some aspects 
> of gebrokts.  

Why do you assume the gezerah is because of gebrokts? I assume it is
more maraat ayin. i.e. why shouldn't bake/eat bread even if it is made
somehow from matzah and not chametz.

Eli Turkel

RCS:
>With the water supply, if someone is fishing in the Kineret and
>they are using bread as bait, that bread is visible to the naked eye (it
>may not be by the tim

                                                                 Bs"d
Truth to tell, I'm a little chosheish that this whole story is apocryphal
- has anyone actually seen someone using bread as bait, or is it just
a story someone heard? The sh'verkeit: bread gets very soggy very
quickly. How, pray tell, will it stay on the hook? An upshlug with a
kasha l'maisa... Incidentally, I heard in the name of a Gadol recently
that if we knew how much tzar we caused a fish with our pleasure fishing,
we would never go fishing.

Eli

In my post on this topic as related to erev Pesach shechal lihyos
beShabbos,  I quoted Rabbi Reisman as saying that this is in fact an
instance of akiras hashulchan.

I forgot to mention that he also said that if one goes to a Viennese
table and eats there,  rather than taking the stuff back to your table, 
the same would apply.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Joelirich@aol.com (to Areivim):
> Given the discussion concerning the primary nature of vhigadita lbincha, how
> do you understand the prominent placement of the story of the 4 rabbis and
> their talmidim celebrating pesach together - it seems like they stayed with
> their talmidim in one's Yeshiva rather than celebrating with family(unless
> you assume they all had their families with them)?

See Rashi on Veshinantom Levonecho: "...elu hatalmidim.."

Shlomo B Abeles

From: SBA [mailto:sba@blaze.net.au]
> See Rashi on Veshinantom Levonecho: "...elu hatalmidim.."

Interestingly, while we generally assume that banim = talmidim for the
purposes of talmud torah, it is commonly accepted that for the purposes of
v'hagad'ta livincha there is a preference for teaching sons (compare Rambam
Hil. Talmud Torah 1:2 with Hil. Chametz u'Matzah 7:2).  Perhaps the chiluk
is that torah can be taught just as effectively to children who are not
sons.  Hagadda (depending on what pshat you have in the essence of the
mitzvah--to what extent is it like talmud torah) emphasizes the experiential
retelling (chayav adam liros/l'haros es atzmo...).  This is an emotional
experience, not merely the transmission of information, and therefore has
the greatest impact when members of one's own family are present.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Eli Turkel wrote:
> Why do you assume the gezerah is because of gebrokts? I assume it is 
> more maraat ayin. i.e. why shouldn't bake/eat bread even if it is 
> made somehow from matzah and not chametz.

I think I was unclear in my post. The Rashbash forbade food made from
matzah meal because of a gezeirah atu chametz [as the annotator to the
new edition of his teshuvos points out, the gemara he quotes as proof
does not appear that way in our editions]. It could be argued that this
is the reasoning behind not eating gebrokts as well, in which case we
have a rishon forbidding gebrokts.

Gil Student

From: Eli Linas [mailto:linaseli@netvision.net.il]
> I was also going to post about this connection bw kneidelach and Pesach 
> rolls. But what's different about them and a cake or cookies made from M. 
> meal? ...

Isn't it a davar pashut that cake has lost its toar lechem?  After all, you
make a mezonos on it.  If something hasn't lost its toar lechem (e.g., most
matza brei), you make hamotzi, while if something has lost its toar lechem,
e.g., matza brei which is made of small pieces and soaked until the water
turns white, you make mezonos.

From: Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer [mailto:frimea@mail.biu.ac.il]
> My research suggests that according to most authorities, the prohibition
> of matzah on Erev pesach includes items baked with matzah mehl (e.g.,
> cakes and cookies), but not those cooked (e.g., Kneidelach - kufta'ot)
> [OH 444, MB no. 8] or fried (matzah brei, chremzelach) [See for example,
> Erev Pesach she-Hal be-Shabbat, R. Zvi Cohen, chap. 21, parag. 5 and
> note 10].

Could you please explain R. Zvi Cohen's reasoning, given my argument above?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
> It seems that that this statement is contradicted by Mishnah Brurah in
> 471:20 and 461:18.  In 471:20, MB writes that the issur to eat matzah on
> erev pesach applies only to matzah that has shem matzah; consequently he
> permits kneidlach on EP, citing his comments in siman 461. 

Alternatively, see MB 461:20, explaining that when matzah is cooked, even if
it has toar lechem, one is not yotzei achilas matzah because the taste of
matzah has been nullified.  The same reasoning would seem to apply in the
case of cake made of matzah meal.

There seems to be a lot of confusion on this issue. My understanding of the
MB is that there is a chiluk between matzah mevushekes (which is the
syubject of the MB in 471:20 and 461:20) and rebaked matzah-even though it
is has been rebaked with oil and honey. In the latter case the MB in 471
(possibly 471:21 or end of 471:20) seems to clearly say that you can not eat
this matzah erev pesach. Only boiled matah loses it's taam of matzah. 

In reference to Rav Ovadiah Yosef, I saw brought down based on the Chazon
Ovadiah haggaddah that rebaked matzah is  a problem. I also saw that Rav
Elyashiv held the same way.

As far as fried matzah goes,  the Shaar Hatziyon in 471 implies it is toloi
on whether one holds  that frying has a din of bishul or not.(I believe it
is a machlokes between Shulchan Oruch HaRav and others found in Siman
188(?).

From: Alan Davidson 
> Wouldn't permissibility of gebrokts erev pesach depend on whether one
> considered gebrokts to be chometz or not -- for instance, 
> some chassidic
> groups in CHuL actually use different kelim on Acharon Shel 
> Pesach than
> for the rest of Pesach. 

I would think that at least until chatzos, you should be able to be meikil,
as the issur chometz is just m'drabbanan and is comparable to the issur
chometz on the eighth day of Pesach.  

Kol tuv,
Moshe 

At 08:20 AM 3/28/01 +0200, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:
>Rabbi YGB suggests the use of Matzah Mehl Rolls on Erev pesach.  My
>research suggests that according to most authorities, the prohibition of
>matzah on Erev pesach includes items baked with matzah mehl (e.g., cakes
>and cookies), but not those cooked...

Correct. I do not understand why, but the  MB does say in 471:19 that one 
may not eat Matzo Meal products rebaked, even with wine and oil, on Erev 
Pesach (he seems not to  cite any source for this chumrah). Oh well, so 
much for my proposal.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: Alan Davidson 
> Is there any source for davenning Shacharis relatively late, making
> kiddush and having the meal b'zman and then having leining and Musaf
> later in the day (like we do on Simchas Torah). As one of the lunatics
> involuntarily appointed to run things at my shul this Pesach, I would
> be interested in responses.

Historically, I doubt the poor Jews of Eastern Europe had many shul-wide
kiddushim.  Personally, I see nothing wrong with it.  Of course, some
rabbonim are makpid to have davka bread, and don't want the little kids
running around and spreading chometz in shul.  Of course, if you're willing
to have egg matzah (and eat a sufficient amount for kvias seudah), this
obviates the problem.

As one who is most definitely not a morning person (I have been called, "the
late Moshe Feldman"), I have been working to convince the powers that be in
my shul to use exactly your solution.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Steve Katz [mailto:sk0002@home.com]
> how do you measure out 9 kav in the shower?

Count them one by one.  <g>

IIRC, it's a davar pashut that any regular shower of just a few minutes
constitutes 9 kav.  9 kav, IIRC, isn't very much (though I don't recall how
much it is).  Also, IIRC, you should make sure that the water is hitting the
majority of your body (e.g., falling on your shoulders & back, rather than
your legs).  

Despite the existence of Rav Tzuriel's kula, I have always found it
cathartic on Erev Yom Kippur to go to the mikveh.  

Kol tuv,
Moshe

R'in Chana Luntz wrote in v7n2:
> Robert (my husband) follows the shitta (as ikkar hadin) that you do not
> say birchas krias shema after z'man tephilla...

I wonder if this is the same machlokes as whether women make birchos
hamitzvah when they are einum metzuvos vi'osos.

Thanks to Eric Simon, I was recently exposed to the idea that shema
after z'man is a mitvah kiyumis, not a fulfilment of the chiyuv. And
it's unclear as to whether this is after 4 hours or after chatzos --
thus explaining the Ben Ish Chai's confusion as a machlokes rishonim.

If Sepharadi women don't make a berachah on a mitzvah kiyumis, then
of course their husbands wouldn't either. Perhaps then Ashkenazim
should be making this berachah, even if you agree that it's only
kiyumis and not the chiyuv.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In v7n3 (25-Mar-01 23:17:34 -0600) RYGB wrote:
> The Arizal in the Tikkunei Shabbos ("Askinu Se'udoso") identifies Shabbos 
> night as Chakal Tapuchin Kaddishin - the aspect of our Avodas Hashem 
> consecrating Shabbos - much as our work creates a crop in an orchard...

I don't understand the identification with the avos. Look at how the avos
describe Mori'ah. Avraham sees it as a har, as the chol rising up toward
HKBH. Yitzchak finds a sadeh, a place where he can radiate kedushah to the
surrounding environment as my greatgrandfather put it (Divrei Yisrael I,
Vayeitzei; see http://www.aishdas.org/asp/vayeitzei.html>). Yaakov dwells
there in Beis E-lokim, a tziruf.

Aslo, I would assume that RYBS's Halachic Man promotes a partnership,
IOW, that the true goal of halachah is neither IdT nor IdE, but in
the partnership with HKBH that one gets in the combination.

Which shtims with a later comment in that post:
> In this scheme, the highest madreigah is Shabbos morning (reflected in the 
> Halacha of Kavod Yom Adif). That is why it seems to me that in the order of 
> the three mitzvos it should be Challah in the morning - corresponding to 
> Da'as as the highest madreigah...

RYGB later writes:
> R' Shlomo Fisher notes that Shabbos is, overwhelmingly, a manifestation of 
> IdE, as opposed to Yom Tov, which is IdT - except for Pesach, where the 
> Ge'ulah was an IdE - without Am Yisroel's merit, or even great longing ...

Then why do we set the date for Pesach, as we do for Succos? One would
think that Shabbos, which is primarily IdE, is of course a schedule
set by HKBH, and that yamim tovim depend on beis din's kiddush hachodesh
just because it sets dates for IdT. In which case, how does Pesach
jibe?


R'in Gila Atwood asked:
> How about different parts of Tefilla?  Tachnun definitely IDT but Amidah
> itself is an enabling of IDE after all the preceding preparation?

This fits the Gra's distinction between the formal tefillah of Amidah,
where one is being mispallel, changing himself to fit the tefillah; and
the tachanunim of informal tefillah, where the words are expression of
what one actually needs. "E-lokei Netzor" (which is why it's bilashon
yachid) and Tachanun are frameworks for the latter. As are Yiddish
Techines.

As in "kol ha'oseh tefilaso keva, lo asa tefilaso tachanunim."

Tefillah is IdE, tachanunim IdT.

> It seems in many things,   IdT *leads to IdE*.

RYGB mentioned techiyas hameisim, but I noticed an ambiguity in this
regard WRT the ge'ulah.

OT1H we have "shuvah eilai vi'ashuvah aleichem" -- IdT comes first. OTOH,
in this week's haftorah we have "shuvah eilai ki ge'alticha" -- return to
Me, because I have redeemed you [bilashon avar]. Apparantly the IdE
came already, and all that awaits our ge'ulah is our IdT as a second step.

> OTOH-  you might think the opposite:  human effort is required to bring the
> flour and water together but fermentation is inevitable process over time.

Except that leavened dough is a representation of ego. I think the idea
is to look at the cheftzah as the symbol, not the pe'ulah by which one
gets the cheftzah.


If I may now get into more esoteric territory, this dialectic between
IdE and IdT can be used to frame a chiluk I noticed between the Besht
and the Ben Ish Chai in how to meditate. (I said I was going esoteric.)

The Besh"t writes of meditation as a way of reaching Heichalos and Olamos
ha'Elyonim. For example Noach 66, Shemini 1, 6.

The BICh offers a pre-tefillah meditation in shanah 1, Mikeitz
#13. Diagrams of which are found in a number of Sepharadi siddurim. It
also refers to the vowelizations of Sheim Havayah and putting Sheim
Adnus in the latter Hei that one finds in many Sepharadi siddurim. In
this process, a person takes variations of the sheim and places them
"down" onto the self, making oneself a merkavah for HKBH.

IOW, the Besht has one rising up, IdT; the BICh has one accepting IdE.

(BTW, it wasn't only the mekubalim who meditated. See in Michtav
mei'Eliyahu I, REED's instructions for how to learn a mussar
concept. Repeating the same sentence or pasuk for 20 minutes or more
is meditative.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On 28 Mar 2001, at 11:55, Micha Berger wrote:
> shema after z'man is a mitvah kiyumis, not a fulfilment of the chiyuv. And
> it's unclear as to whether this is after 4 hours or after chatzos --
> thus explaining the Ben Ish Chai's confusion as a machlokes rishonim.

If you're referring to Shma, shouldn't it be after three hours or after
chatzos? Or are you saying Shma only as a prelude to Shmoneh Esrei and
therefore arguing that the brachos should go along with tfilla?

-- Carl

I see no one indicates that the source of NOT eating matza erev pessach
is in a Yerushalmi Pessachim 68b which equates eating matza erev Pessach
with *ha'bah al arusato b'veit chamav* ! The Bavli Pessachim 49a which
deals Erev Pessach she'chal b'Shabbat happens to mention a case of
"v'le'echol seudat eirusin b'veit chamav". Was the lashon of the
Yerushalmi an aggadic rather than an halachic proscription ??

Josh

Rav Jolti's suggestion that one could use matzos baked shlo l'shma erev
Pesach brings up the following:

A friend of mine told me that he walked into a hand matzo bakery in
Brooklyn this year and saw the following sign, in Hebrew: "We are not
responsible for the Jewishness of our workers"!

The "assembly line" there consists of Russian ladies, who presumably do
claim that they are Jews.

I am travelling and away from seforim, so:

1) Would the involvement of at least one Jew with the right intention
somewhere along the line render the finished product as being L'Shma?

2)Does the involvement of a non-Jew somewhere along the line pose any
halachic problems?

3)Is there a difference between matzos specifically baked she lo l'shma
and those baked with no intention at all?

4) Does the mashgiach being Omeid al Gabayhen make a difference here?

David Hojda

On 28 Mar 2001, at 11:49, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> I would think that at least until chatzos, you should be able to be meikil,
> as the issur chometz is just m'drabbanan and is comparable to the issur
> chometz on the eighth day of Pesach.  

My shver holds gebrokts. When they lived in America, he used his Pesach
keilim to eat Knaidlach on the last (8th) day of Pesach (only). But
that was only because the keilim were then to be put away for a year. He
would never use his Pesachdig keilim for gebrokts on Erev Pesach. And I
remember one year when the 8th day of Pesach was on Shabbos and we were
in their house, and there were no knaidlach that year, because my shver
would not allow the Pesachdig keilim to be used to prepare knaidlach on
the 7th day of Pesach.

In Eretz Yisrael, my inlaws don't eat gebrokts at all during Pesach.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On 27 Mar 2001, at 20:25, Harry Maryles wrote:
> However, the Aruch HaShulchan states unequivically that MeIkkar HaDin,
> bread is required based on the the positions of the Rif, The Rambam, the
> Rosh, the Tur, and the SA, that Shaleshudes can only be fulfilled through
> bread. As I posted several weeks ago: The best method of fulfilling
> the Seudah requirements is to eat Chametz before Shah HaAsiri. This way
> you can be MeKaim the requirements of Seudah B'Pas and Lechem Mishneh
> with Sheleimos. IOW you eat both day meals before the tenth hour of the
> day. 

I think you meant the fourth hour, which is when the issur achilas
chametz kicks in.

> In order to avoid making a Bracha SheAino Tzricha, you wash for
> the first meal (on Lechem Mishna), eat a Kezayis, Bentch, WALK AWAY FOR
> A SHORT WHILE (so as not to make it appear that you are just bentching
> in order to artificially create another Seudah) and then wash again for
> Shaleshudes on Lechem Mishna... ALL BEFORE TEN OCLOCK.

Why a "short while"? I would think that if you only walk away for a
minute or two, you run the risk of bracha she'aina tzricha. The last
time this happened, I can remember going for a walk around the block
between the meals, and even then my shver thought it was bracha she'aina
tzricha. This time I'm shooting for enough time to have fifteen minutes
or so between meals.

And 10:00 is late (probably because you guys are on DST by
then). Here, Magen Avraham l'chumra is 8:40 and Magen Avraham regular
is 9:03. (R. Aryeh Stein can explain what Magen Avraham l'chumra is -
I'd like to get to sleep tonight :-).

>      ... In order to satisfy those Shitos which say you aren't Yotze
> Shaleshudos in ther morning, you can then rely on those who say you can
> be Yotze Shaleshudos with meat or fruit and eat that after the sixth hour.

I think you should daven Mincha first. 

> The Gra did not eat Shaleshudes under these conditions.

At all? Is this in Maaseh Rav somewhere? 

> Botom line: Any way you do it, you compromise something but if you eat
> Pas and you have Lechem Mishneh, I think you are satisfying the maximum
> number of parameters.

And if you eat meat and fruit after Mincha, you can even be choshesh
for Rav Chidka :-)

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

To be posted soon on the Dor Revi'i website

www.dorrevii.org or
www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4

B'Hagadah: avadim hayinu l'pharoh b'mitzrayim va-yotzieinu ha-Shem 
Elokeinu mi-sham b'yad hazakah u-vi-z'roah n'tuyah.  v'ilu lo hotzi 
ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu et avoteinu mi-mitzrayim harei anu u-vaneinu 
u-v'nei vaneinu m'shubadim l'pharoh:   Many have asked from where 
we know that if the Eternal had not redeemed us from there we would 
have remained slaves to Pharaoh forever.  And it appears to our 
master that although it was decreed upon them at the Covenant 
Between the Pieces that they should be enslaved and afflicted and 
forced to bear the unbearable Egyptian burden, it was not decreed 
that they should become like slaves who had lost all feeling for freedom 
and liberty and who would not desire to be liberated because they 
preferred to serve their masters, and they did not even knew for what.  
As we wrote in poroshat Ki Tavo on the verse (Deuteronomy 28:68): 
"and ye shall sell yourselves unto your enemies for bondmen and 
bondwomen, and no man shall buy you," that this meant that anyone 
who would buy them would see that he had been mistaken, because 
he would not have bought a slave, because they had not sink to the 
level of slaves to have lost every elevated aptitude and faculty.  
However, our ancestors in Egypt were not wise and they lowered their 
heads to the ground, reaching the lowest level, that of a slave, losing 
utterly every advantage, every talent, and every lofty and honorable 
quality.  They did not realize that every honor had been removed from 
them and that the crown of any human being, his freedom, which is the 
majesty, the splendor and the glory of a person, was missing.  So low 
did they sank that they would not listen to Moshe and did not want to 
leave.  Even after leaving, they repented of what they had done and 
they said "let us appoint a leader and return," and "for it is better to 
serve Egypt than to die in the desert," and "we remember the fish" 
and many other statements like these.  And the philosophers have 
already observed that whenever any right is taken from a person by 
force, the person retains some hope of eventually recovering his right 
again.  However, when a person willingly surrenders and abandons 
his rights, the person despairs of hope and he will never recover what 
he has discarded.

This is what is meant by "we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt."  We 
sank to the level of a slave who is no longer even sensible of what he 
has lost and what he lacks.  This was beyond what the Eternal decreed 
"and they shall serve them" (va-avadum), which meant that they should 
feel the servitude and the subordination that was so heavy upon them, 
but that they should long for the time of their salvation and their liberation 
from the confinement of their souls.  And then the Hagadah brings a 
proof that this is so:  "And the Eternal our G-d brought us out from there 
with a strong hand and an outstretched arm," because our ancestors did 
not want to leave there any more, because they had become accustomed 
to the hard work and they could not even imagine what was better than 
that.  Only the Eternal could then have taken them out of Egypt with a 
strong hand.  If the Holy One Blessed Be He had not taken us out, we 
and our children and our children's children would therefore be slaves 
until this day, because our ancestors voluntarily and willingly gave 
themselves up to be slaves and they did not recognize what they were 
lacking. 

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

*******************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]