Two cooked foods on the Seder plate
[A] (Halacha 526)
Question: Why do we place two cooked dishes (tavshilin) on the Seder night?
Answer: At the time the Beis HaMikdash stood, those who offered the sacrifice would bring the meat of the korban Pesach to the Seder table, as the Mishnah states in Maseches Pesachim1: 'And in the Mikdash they would bring before him the body of the Pesach.' And although the korban Pesach is not eaten until after the meal, a disciple of the Rashba explained that this was done: 'so that he would lift it up and say, This Pesach that we eat, just as we do with the matzah and maror.'
The Mishnah there states: 'They brought before him matzah, lettuce (chazeres), charoses, and two cooked dishes.' In the version in the Yerushalmi these words 'two cooked dishes' do not appear. But on the other hand the Yerushalmi cited a baraisa which says: 'It was taught: And in the provinces they require two cooked dishes, one a remembrance of the Pesach and one a remembrance of the Chagigah.'
And some understood2 that the words of the Mishnah regarding two cooked dishes apply specifically in the present time after the Churban, for only then did they institute that two cooked dishes be brought as a remembrance of the Mikdash.
But the Rebbe in the Haggadah3 wrote: 'For it is proven from the Mishnah and the Yerushalmi that even at the time of the Beis HaMikdash they would take two cooked dishes.' And afterward4 he explained at greater length: 'A Mishnah taught without attribution (in setam) explains the law for all times, all places, and all persons, and what is stated in the Mishnah that they bring two cooked dishes is a law for all times and all places, apart from what is explained in the latter clause (seifa), And in the Mikdash they would bring etc.'
[And to note that from the plain meaning of the language of the Alter Rebbe5 who wrote: 'And at the time the Beis HaMikdash stands he was required to bring also the Pesach at the time of reciting the Haggadah, and now that the Beis HaMikdash is destroyed the Sages instituted that there be on the table at the time of reciting the Haggadah two kinds of cooked dishes, one a remembrance of the Pesach and one a remembrance of the Chagigah,' it appears at first glance that the institution of the Sages is specifically after the Churban. But many have already expounded at length to explain the words of the Alter Rebbe6].
And the Amoraim disputed7 which cooked dishes one should bring: 'What are the two cooked dishes? Rav Huna said: beets and rice [=silka v'aruza]. Rava would seek out beets and rice, since it had come forth from the mouth of Rav Huna .. Chizkiyah said: even a fish and the egg upon it. Rav Yosef said: one needs two kinds of meat, one a remembrance of the Pesach and one a remembrance of the Chagigah. Ravina said: even a bone and gravy [=a piece of meat and the soup in which it was cooked].'
And Rabbeinu David (a disciple of the Ramban) wrote in his chiddushim that according to all the opinions in the Gemara there, the cooked dishes are one a remembrance of the Pesach and the second of the Chagigah: 'And that which Rav Yosef said two kinds of meat, one a remembrance of the Pesach and one a remembrance of the Chagigah, the same applies to all the Amoraim as well, that the two cooked dishes are only for this reason, because of a remembrance of the Pesach and a remembrance of the Chagigah, except that he who said that one needs two kinds of meat gave a reason for his words, because they are a remembrance of the Pesach which are of meat. And so too wrote the Ran, and these are his words: 'one a remembrance of the Pesach and one a remembrance of the Chagigah, according to all the Amoraim as well it is for this reason, but what is the reason he states it, since the reason for two cooked dishes is because of the Pesach and the Chagigah, he requires kinds of meat resembling them.'
However the Rokeach8 wrote: 'Two cooked dishes a remembrance of the Chagigah and of the Pesach, and some say a remembrance of Moshe and Aharon9'. And in the Maaseh Rokeach10 he cited from the words of the Geonim11: 'And further they asked about two cooked dishes and he answered a remembrance of the two emissaries Moshe and Aharon whom the Holy One, blessed be He, sent in Egypt, and some place yet another cooked dish a remembrance of Miriam, as it is said (Michah 6) "And I sent before you Moshe and Aharon and Miriam," and those three cooked dishes, fish, meat, and egg, correspond to the kinds of food that Israel is destined to eat in the future, fish corresponding to Leviathan, egg corresponding to the radiance of Sha-dai, meat corresponding to the wild ox.' And see also in the Siddur of Rasag12 who brought two cooked dishes or more: 'And he shall place two kinds or three or four beet and rice and a salted item and eggs.'
If so, we have seen that even at the time of the Beis HaMikdash, for one who did not have a korban Pesach, and likewise after the Churban, one should bring two cooked dishes to the table at the time of reciting the Haggadah.
In tomorrow's halacha we will discuss the ruling as to which cooked dishes we must bring.
Footnotes:
1 קיד, א ↩
2 ראה דברי הרש"י זווין ע"ה שהובאו במכתב הרבי אג"ק ח"ב ע' רמג וע' רסא ↩
3 ד"ה הזרוע ↩
4 אג"ק ח"ב עמ' רסב ↩
5 שו"ע או"ח סי' תעג ס"כ ↩
6 ראה הנסמן בשו"ע אדמו"ר הזקן עם דובר שלום ח"ה בהגדה של פסח הערה קלז. שערי שלום (שפאלטר) ע' יח. וראה גם מש"כ הרב עקיבא וואגנר ע"ה בהעו"ב גליון א'לג עמ' 27 ↩
7 בגמרא שם עמוד ב ↩
8 הל' פסח סי' רפג. הובא בחק יעקב סי' תעג ס"ק טו. וראה מ"ש האליה רבה או"ח שם ס"ק י ↩
9 כתב הדבר שמואל פסחים שם ד"ה תנאי, שלשיטת הרוקח שאר האמוראים לא סברו שזה כנגד החגיגה והפסח, אלא כנגד משה ואהרן, ולשיטתם גם בבבית המקדש לקחו ב' תבשילין, זכר למשה ואהרון ↩
10 הל' ליל הסדר אות נט. וראה גם שבלי הלקט סדר פסח סי' ריח ↩
11 אוצר הגאונים לפסחים תשובות סי' שלא ↩
12 ירושלים תשכ"ג - הגדה של פסח ע' קלה ↩
[B] (Halacha 527)
In the previous halacha we learned that the Sages instituted that there be on the table at the time of reciting the Haggadah two kinds of cooked dishes.
Question: What are the two cooked dishes that one should bring?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Pesachim1 says: 'What are the two cooked dishes? Rav Huna said: beets and rice [=silka v'aruza]. Rava would seek out beets and rice, since it had come forth from the mouth of Rav Huna .. Chizkiyah said: even a fish and the egg upon it. Rav Yosef said: one needs two kinds of meat, one a remembrance of the Pesach and one a remembrance of the Chagigah. Ravina said: even a bone and gravy [=a piece of meat and the soup in which it was cooked].'
And the Rishonim wrote2 that even the Amoraim who specified other kinds of cooked dishes that are not meat, hold that all the more so one may bring meat3. Whereas Rav Yosef disagrees and holds that one needs specifically meat, as the Ran wrote4: 'And Rav Yosef, what is the reason he states, that is to say, since the two cooked dishes come as a remembrance of the two korbanos, we require two kinds of meat.'
And concerning the words of Chizkiyah who wrote fish, the Ran wrote there: 'And it is possible that Chizkiyah does not concede regarding beets and rice, for he holds that we require meat, and the flesh of fish is in any case considered meat with regard to a vow, as stated in Nedarim (folio 54b).' And also concerning the words of Ravina who wrote that one may bring a 'bone (garma),' which usually means a bone, the Ran explained there5: 'Ravina said even a bone and gravy, a bone [=etzem] by itself certainly does not suffice, but rather where some meat is wrapped around it he says, for this too is called a bone.' That is to say that here it speaks of a bone that has a bit of meat upon it.
If so, we have seen that the Amoraim disputed which two cooked dishes are fitting for the two cooked dishes.
As to the halacha, the Rambam6 wrote in accordance with the words of Rav Yosef7 that one needs specifically kinds of meat, and these are his words: 'And in the present time they bring on the table two kinds of meat one a remembrance of the Pesach and one a remembrance of the Chagigah.'
And the Hagahos Maimoniyos8 wrote: 'And Rabbeinu Tam wrote the halacha is like the one who says a bone and gravy, which is the last one, therefore one must take a bone and the gravy or two kinds of meat, but a bone and an egg are not two kinds, for an egg is not a kind of meat, since it is permitted to eat it with milk.'
Except that several of the Rishonim wrote in the name of the Yerushalmi9 that the people had the custom to take meat [a shankbone (zeroa)] and an egg, as the Meiri wrote there: 'And in any case the people had the custom of a shankbone (zeroa) and an egg, and even in the Midrash they relate to them from the standpoint of the language, that is to say beia and dera, meaning "the Merciful One desired" and "He redeemed us with an uplifted arm."'
And so too wrote the Agur10: 'The great one of his generation, the Maharil, wrote that it is a mitzvah to take two cooked dishes, an egg and a shankbone (zeroa) or meat. And so testified the author of the Agudah, and its reason is explained, beisa, that the Merciful One desired us and redeemed us, end of quote. In the Orchos Chaim11 it is written, the Merciful One desired to redeem us with an uplifted arm.'
And the Pri Chadash12 explained: 'The view of the Rambam is that one must bring on the table two kinds of meat, and so too the view of some of the poskim z"l because they rule like Rav Yosef, but this is not so, for Rava who is the later one would seek out beets and rice, evidently the view of Rav Yosef does not stand. But in any case we require one of the two cooked dishes to be meat, in accordance with Ravina who is the later one who says even a bone and gravy, and the Ran z"l wrote a bone by itself certainly does not suffice, but rather where a bit of meat is wrapped around it, for this too is called a bone, and gravy is broth that was cooked with it, and according to Ravina at any rate we require meat, end of quote. But in any case, since Rava states there [116b] meat does not need to be lifted up, and he states it without attribution, it implies that he holds like Ravina that we require meat. And therefore it appears that the principal reading is Rabbah with a heh would seek out beets and rice, and it emerges that Rava and Ravina who are the later ones hold that we require at least one of the two cooked dishes to be meat, and so is the principal ruling.'
And there are among the Rishonim who wrote that the minhag is to bring a shankbone of a lamb or of a kid, as is written in the Sefer HaManhig13: 'And they had the custom in France and Provence to roast the shankbone of the lamb, a remembrance of the matter "And the L-rd brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm."' And Rabbeinu Manoach14 wrote: 'It is a custom to bring a shankbone of a lamb or of a kid and to roast it.' And it is also mentioned in the Tur15 and in the words of the Alter Rebbe16.
If so, there are among the poskim who held like the Amoraim who wrote that one should take two kinds of meat, and there are who held that at least one of the two cooked dishes must be meat [and there are who had the custom of a shankbone of a lamb or kid], and they had the custom that the second cooked dish be an egg.
And the Mechaber ruled17: 'And they had the custom of meat and an egg .. and as for the meat they had the custom that it be a shankbone (zeroa).'
And so too wrote the Alter Rebbe18: 'And at the time the Beis HaMikdash stands he was required to bring also the Pesach at the time of reciting the Haggadah, and now that the Beis HaMikdash is destroyed the Sages instituted that there be on the table at the time of reciting the Haggadah two kinds of cooked dishes, one a remembrance of the Pesach and one a remembrance of the Chagigah, and one of the cooked dishes (they had the custom that it be) meat, and the second may be even the broth in which the meat was cooked, and already from the earliest generations they had the custom that the meat be from the limb called the shankbone (zeroa) as a remembrance that the Holy One, blessed be He, redeemed them with an outstretched arm. And the second be an egg, since it is beia in the Aramaic tongue, that is to say that the Merciful One desired to redeem us with an uplifted arm.'
If so, we have seen that they disputed in the Gemara which cooked dishes to take, and the Rishonim disputed in accordance with whose words to rule, but they wrote that in practice they had the custom to take meat and an egg. In tomorrow's halacha, with G-d's help, we will see our custom in actual practice.
--------------
Footnotes:
1 קיד, ב ↩
2 רבינו חננאל ד"ה מאי. רשב"ם ותוס' ד"ה סילקא ↩
3 להעיר ממ"ש הרש"ש שלכאורה יש לפרש שאינו כ"ש: 'דדוקא נקיט, ולאפוקי בשר כדי שלא יהא נראה כאוכל קדשים בחוץ כדלקמן (קטז, ב)' ↩
4 פסחים כה, א מדפי הרי"ף ↩
5 הובא בשו"ע אדמו"ר הזקן סי' תעג סכ"ב. וראה גם רש"י ורשב"ם ↩
6 הל' חמץ ומצה פ"ח ה"א ↩
7 ראה מגיד משנה והגה"מ ↩
8 שם אות ב ↩
9 ראה עלי תמר ירושלמי פסחים פ"י ה"ג: 'ואינו בירושלמי שלפנינו, ונראה שזו היתה הוספה בירושלמי מזמן מאוחר' ↩
10 הל' ליל פסח סי' תשצו ↩
11 סדר ליל הפסח אות יב, ובכלבו סי' נ ↩
12 או"ח סיד תעג ס"ד ↩
13 הל' פסח עמוד תפב ↩
14 בספר המנוחה הל' חו"מ פ"ח ה"א ↩
15 סי' תפו ↩
16 תעג סכ"ו ↩
17 שו"ע או"ח סי' תעג ס"ד ↩
18 שם סכ"א ↩
[C] (Halacha 528)
In the previous halacha we saw that the poskim wrote to take a shankbone (zeroa) for one of the cooked dishes for the Seder night plate.
Question: Why then do we take a part of the neck of a chicken?
Answer: The Pri Megadim wrote1: 'A shankbone (zeroa). An allusion to the outstretched arm. And one who does not have a shankbone should take other meat even without a bone. And as for the fact that some had the custom of the neck of a chicken with the meat upon it, I do not know a reason for it, for what difference is there to me between this and other meat.'
This minhag is also mentioned in a negative light in the Sefer Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah2 who wrote: 'And as for the shankbone (zeroa), he should be careful that it not be from chicken meat, for most women make a chicken neck for the shankbone.'
However, in practice this minhag of taking a chicken neck was accepted also among our Rebbeim, the Nesi'im, as is brought3 that they asked the Rebbe Rayatz for what reason do we place specifically a windpipe on the plate in place of the shankbone? And the Rebbe Rayatz answered: that we do several things in order to negate any resemblance to the korban Pesach, similar to the law that one does not eat roasted meat on the Pesach night. His Holiness my revered father and master, the holy Rebbe [the Rebbe Rashab], would be meticulous that there be as little meat as possible on the shankbone that one takes.
And so too the Rebbe wrote in the Haggadah4: 'We have the custom to take a part of a chicken neck. So too we are careful not to eat the shankbone afterward - all this is a distancing so that there be no resemblance to the korban Pesach. And for this reason, His Holiness my father-in-law and teacher, the Rebbe, removes almost all the meat from the bones of the shankbone.'
[And to note that the custom of our Rebbeim, the Nesi'im, that there be as little meat as possible is that, although we learned5 the words of the Ran, which were brought in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe6 that one should take a piece that also has meat on it, so that it be in the category of a cooked dish, yet since even according to our custom some meat remains, this is considered a cooked dish, as in the language of the Alter Rebbe there: 'one must be careful that there be a bit of meat wrapped around the bone of the shankbone, for a bone without meat is not called a cooked dish'].
And afterward the Rebbe explained in a letter7: 'As for what I wrote that one refrains from eating the shankbone - I brought in this, as in the other minhogim, the custom of the house of the Rebbe, that is to say His Holiness my father-in-law and teacher, the Rebbe שליט"א. And he also explained to me the reason, that it is in order that there be no resemblance to the korban Pesach (and a distancing is needed, since it comes as a remembrance of it). And one may sweeten this, that this directive that we not liken it to the korban Pesach is specifically by way of the absence of eating - for the Pesach differs from all the korbanos in that the eating of it is the essence and not merely one detail among the other details as in the other korbanos, and as the Sages said, Pesachim 76b: that it came from its outset only for eating. And in Rashi there: when the essence of the Pesach was commanded it was commanded for eating. And therefore when we are meticulous not to eat it, we negate the essential matter of the korban Pesach (which is not the case with a directive by way of eating it after its time, which he wrote in the letter).'
And to note from an additional practice of the Rebbe Rayatz, which the Rebbe noted8 with regard to the shankbone, that although our custom at the time of reciting the Haggadah, at "This matzah, for what reason," and likewise "This maror that we eat," is to touch them, yet at the time of reciting "The Pesach that our forefathers would eat," we do not touch the meat, and moreover the Rebbe Rayatz also would not look at the shankbone, and it is possible that this too is connected to the aforementioned matter that we distance any resemblance to the korban Pesach.
An allusion to the taking of the neck for the shankbone is brought in the Sefer Otzar Yad HaChaim9: 'And I found in the Sefer HaOrah of Rashi z"l10 that what is stated in the Gemara regarding the charoses, a remembrance of the apple, that the joints of Israel would swell from the clay that they would bear on their shoulders, and from this the minhag developed.'
If so, according to our custom we take for the shankbone a chicken neck and remove almost all the meat, but certainly a bit of meat must be left so that it not be a bone alone.
Footnotes:
1 או"ח א"א סי' תעג ס"ק ז ↩
2 פ"ט סי' ד ↩
3 ספר השיחות תש"ב ע' 93 ↩
4 בד"ה הזרוע ↩
5 בהלכה 527 ↩
6 סי' תעג סכ"ב ↩
7 אג"ק ח"ב ע' קל ↩
8 רשימת היומן ע' שעה ↩
9 אות תשיב ↩
10 ספר האורה ח"א [פז] דין ירקות ↩
[D] (Halacha 529)
Question: Must the meat for the shankbone (zeroa) specifically be roasted?
Answer: The Rishonim disputed this question, for the Rif1 wrote: 'Rav Yosef said two kinds of meat, one a remembrance of the Pesach and one a remembrance of the Chagigah, the roasted one a remembrance of the Pesach and the cooked one a remembrance of the Chagigah'2.
And so too wrote the Meiri3: 'And some of them required two kinds of meat, one a remembrance of the Pesach and it is roasted, and one a remembrance of the Chagigah and it is cooked, and this version the great authors ruled, and so it is fitting to do.'
Except that the Rambam4 wrote: 'And in the present time they bring on the table two kinds of meat, one a remembrance of the Pesach and one a remembrance of the Chagigah.' And he did not mention the law that one meat must be roasted.
And the Hagahos Maimoniyos wrote: 'And it appears to me that the Tanna stated to us without attribution like Ben Teima who says the Chagigah is eaten roasted, therefore one should take only two kinds of meat even if both are roasted or cooked, as the words of our master the author.' Also Rabbeinu David there wrote: 'But to say that the one should be roasted and the one cooked, we have no basis, for we have not heard from him that he said so.'
And the Tosafos5 wrote: 'The interpretation of Rabbeinu Chananel, roasted a remembrance of the Pesach and cooked a remembrance of the Chagigah, and it is not correct, for we hold like Ben Teima6 that the Chagigah is eaten only roasted, for our Mishnah comes in accordance with him, therefore it appears that both are cooked7 and so too the language "cooked dishes" implies.'
And moreover the Seder HaYom wrote8: 'And it is better that it be cooked and not roasted, so that it not resemble it at all, but rather a mere remembrance.' [And to note from the Aruch HaShulchan9 who wrote that his custom is to cook the meat, but for a different reason, and these are his words: 'And some have written that it is better to cook the meat and the egg so that they may be eaten at night, for if one leaves them for the second day they will come to spoilage if he roasts them on the first night, since one Yom Tov does not prepare for the other, but with an egg, even roasted is permitted, and among us they had the custom to cook the meat and the egg'].
Concerning the opinions that did write to roast the meat, the Kolbo wrote10: 'And our custom is to make a roast from the shankbone of the animal, a remembrance of the outstretched arm, and we do not roast it on a spit but only over the coals, and the reason is because it is a remembrance of the Pesach, and the Pesach was roasted only on a spit of pomegranate wood, since it has no marrow, for if one roasted it on a spit of other wood, perhaps the moisture of the wood would cook it and it would be cooked and forbidden; and also not on a spit of iron, lest the heat of the iron roast it, and it would not be roasted by fire but rather roasted by iron, and we roast it only over the coals, for if one were to seek out a spit of pomegranate it would be a great trouble'11.
And similarly the Meiri wrote there: 'And so they had the custom to roast the Pesach over the coals because the Pesach was roasted only on a spit of pomegranate wood, for if one cooks metal, when part of it is hot all of it is hot, and we require roasting by fire; and if one cooks other woods, they bring forth water from the side of the heat of the fire, and this would be an element of cooking; and since a spit of pomegranate is not commonly available, they roast it over the coals.'
And the Abudraham12 added: 'And they roast the shankbone over the coals because the Pesach is roasted only on a spit of pomegranate wood, as the reason is explained regarding the second Pesach, and if we were to come to search for a spit of wood it would be a great trouble. And the Rif wrote that one need not be concerned, since it is only a mere remembrance, and on the contrary, one who is meticulous in this, it appears that he makes it like actual sanctified offerings, and so too wrote the author of the Ittur, let a person not change.'
And as to the halacha, the Mechaber wrote13: 'And they had the custom that the meat be roasted over the coals.'
And the Alter Rebbe wrote14: 'And he may make them either roasted or cooked from the strict letter of the law. And they had the custom that the meat be roasted over the coals, a remembrance of the Pesach which was roasted by fire, and even though the Pesach was roasted on a spit ideally, nevertheless since it is impossible to roast the meat on the spit on which the Pesach was roasted, for the Pesach was roasted only on a spit of pomegranate wood, and it is a trouble to seek out a spit of pomegranate wood, therefore they roast it over the coals, for even the Pesach that was roasted over the coals is valid.'
If so, according to this it would seem one should endeavor at least ideally to roast the shankbone (zeroa) by actual fire and not to place it upon iron or metal, as the Rambam wrote15, that one does not roast the Pesach on a spit of metal; nevertheless the poskim wrote16 that in practice they had the custom to be lenient and roast it by the fire of the stove with a fork and the like, even though that is a spit of metal. (And some have written that it is worthwhile that at least a small amount of roasting be without a spit of metal).
Footnotes:
1 פסחים כד, ב ↩
2 ולהעיר שהמהר"ם חלאווה (פסחים קיד, ב) כתב על דברי הרי"ף: לאו לעכובא אלא דמנהגא הכי'. ורבינו דוד שם כתב על הרי"ף: 'ואין צריך' ↩
3 פסחים קיד, ב ↩
4 הל' חמץ ומצה פ"ח ה"א ↩
5 שם ד"ה שני מיני בשר ↩
6 דף ע ↩
7 בשבלי הלקט (סדר פסח סי' ריח) כתב: '.. ועוד יש שם שני מיני בשר אפי' ממין אחד כגון האחד צלי ואחד מבושל אחד זכר לפסח ואחד זכר לחגיגה'. מדבריו נראה שהצורך שיהיה אחד מבושל ואחד צלי הוא כדי שיהיה ניכר שהביא שני מיני תבשילין ↩
8 סידור הקערה של ליל הסדר. וראה לקמן מש"כ האבודרהם ↩
9 סי' תעג ס"ט ↩
10 סי' נ ↩
11 וביאר הפמ"ג או"ח משב"ז סי' תעג ס"ק ד: 'ומפני הטורח צולין על הגחלים, כי גם פסח אם נצלה על גבי גחלים שפיר דמי, עיין ר"מ הל' קרבן פסח פ"ח ה"י' ↩
12 סדר ההגדה ופירושה ↩
13 שו"ע או"ח סי' תעג ס"ד ↩
14 שו"ע סי' תעג סעיפים כ - כא ↩
15 הל' קרבן פסח פ"ח ה"ט ↩
16 ויגד משה סי' ג אות ז. אוצר ההלכות סי' תעג ס"ד ע' קטז. הלכות חג בחג פכ"ג דין ב הערה 4 ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project - a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha - Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp group